[Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

Sun Mar 26 10:28:11 UTC 2017

Yeah, Ian is right if anyone did that in Ontario they'd get pulled over by
the cops or flipped off by other drivers. Very unsafe practice to do. A
turning lane/ramp is there for a reason.

Also martjin in Ottawa, especially downtown there are always signs to
restrict turns between peak hours: 5:30-9:30 and 3:30-5:30 monday to
friday. These are there for a reason(so people dont use roads to sneak
around traffic and butt in line) please dont remove these

On Mar 26, 2017 2:05 AM, "Ian Bruseker" <ian.bruseker at gmail.com> wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> I'm sorry to butt in here, I'm normally just a lurker and occasional
> editor of my local bit of the world in OSM, but your comment on the right
> hand turn restriction "at least in BC" really jumped out at me.  I've seen
> a number of times in my driving life someone do exactly what you are
> describing, turning right at the actual intersection of two roads, rather
> than the turning lane that came a little earlier, and every time they have
> had BC plates. I live in Alberta, so I just shrugged it off as "they're
> tourists, they just realized they missed their turn, whatever".  :-)  But
> based on your comment, maybe this is a "BC thing" and you all do it.  ;-)
>
> It's always seemed weird to me to see it (but like I said, "tourists,
> whatever"), and seems like a really unsafe and really should be illegal
> practice.  Imagine this scenario: driver A is traveling down Wilfert, as
> from your map, and appears to be headed straight through the intersection.
> Driver B behind them takes the right-turn linking lane to get to Island
> Highway. Driver A suddenly decides they need to go right, so they turn at
> the intersection proper.  Driver B, having seen the light was green for
> those going straight on Wilfert, presumes (always a bad idea, but hear me
> out) that no car could possibly be coming across their path and drives
> through the right lane and takes the corner.  Then BOOM, driver A's car is
> there out of nowhere because he took the later option to turn right.
> Surely that must be illegal because it is so unsafe.  Not to mention driver
> C behind both of them also expects driver A to go straight because driver A
> has already passed the turning lane, so doesn't expect drive A to suddenly
> decelerate for the turn (this is how I have come to be close enough to a
> car to see its BC plates, as I slam on the brakes to avoid hitting them).
>
> So I did a quick google.  I am not, really really not, a lawyer, but my
> amateur reading of 151(e), as found here:  http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/
> document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section151 , "when approaching an
> intersection intending to turn right must drive the vehicle in the lane
> nearest to the right hand side of the roadway", my take on the wording
> "must" drive, and lane "nearest" to the right, tells me that the linking
> lane is the only one that it is legal to make a right turn from.  Also,
> section 165(4) ( http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/
> 96318_05#section165 ) says "If at an intersection there is a traffic
> control device indicating the course to be travelled by vehicles turning at
> the intersection, a driver must turn a vehicle at the intersection in the
> manner directed by the traffic control device.", and in the definitions
> section, it defines a traffic control device as "a sign, signal, line,
> meter, marking, space, barrier or device".  Based on the satellite imagery
> of that intersection (never actually been there myself), it sure looks like
> there are "lines" and "spaces" and possibly even a concrete island
> "barrier" (imagery isn't that detailed, but sure looks like it) on the road
> that make it clear in where there is a place to turn right.  Also again
> with the word "must" rather than something less imperative like "may" or
> "could".  So based on my reading, it's not that the turn is legal unless
> otherwise indicated, as you say, but rather that it is illegal unless
> otherwise indicated to turn at exactly the spot marked, because you "must"
> follow the traffic control device indications, which is more than just
> signs, and those devices are indicating that you "must" take the linking
> lane.
>
> I totally accept that I'm being a major buttinsky here and probably coming
> off like a huge know-it-all, and I am SO sorry about that, but, given that
> whatever decision is made about whether this is right or not will live on
> in the map, I totally agree with what I think the spirit of what you're
> saying, which is "it needs to be correct".  I just think that the "correct"
> thing is that you can't actually legally turn at that spot, just as that
> turn restriction edit indicates.  If you got that far, go straight and find
> another way to your destination, or turn right and expect a ticket or an
> accident to happen.  Any lawyers or police officers on this list?  Their
> opinions are worth WAY more than mine.  :-)  Again, I am really really
> sorry to butt in.  I just like "correctness" in the map, as you clearly
> do.  I totally agree with the other half of your email, that having
> on-the-ground work killed by bad imagery traces is terrible.  That's why I
> only edit places where I have actually put my own two feet on the ground.
>  :-)
>
> Ian
>
>
> On 25 March 2017 at 21:52, Andrew Lester <a-lester at shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> I just discovered that user georges_telenav has been mapping turn
>> restrictions in the Victoria, BC area. While some of them seem valid, there
>> are hundreds of right-turn restrictions that can't possibly be based on
>> either Mapillary or OpenStreetView as stated below, because these
>> restrictions simply don't exist in reality. Here's an example:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7014602
>>
>> I don't know about the rest of Canada, but at least in BC, this type of
>> turn is perfectly legal unless otherwise indicated. Most drivers would use
>> the link road and I'd expect routers should always prefer that, but there's
>> nothing wrong if a driver gets past the link road and then changes their
>> mind and wants to turn right. I can think of a handful of locations around
>> town where there may be a sign explicitly forbidding this or at least
>> implying it (e.g. "only left turn"), but the vast majority of the instances
>> that this user has mapped do not have such signage. I'm in the process of
>> cleaning all these up, but I'm worried there may be thousands more of these
>> all over the place outside my immediate region.
>>
>> However, what I discovered while cleaning these up is even more
>> disturbing. This is a region with significant growth, and there are
>> frequent changes and additions to the road network. So far, I've discovered
>> several cases where a reconfigured intersection or new road I had carefully
>> mapped by GPS has been obliterated and replaced with an old configuration,
>> apparently based on out-of-date aerial imagery. I take pride in mapping
>> these changes as soon as possible after they're completed so end-users have
>> the most reliable data (and I often mention this to people as one of the
>> benefits of using OSM data in applications), so it's disappointing to see a
>> distant armchair mapper destroy this careful on-the-ground work based on
>> faulty assumptions and out-of-date imagery. I've also seen Telenav mappers
>> adding residential roads that are clearly driveways and making edits
>> without properly aligning aerial imagery, so I'm not exactly filled with
>> confidence that they should be making widespread changes like they are.
>>
>> Martijn, I think Telenav needs to stop what they're doing and have a
>> careful discussion with us about their plans and editing procedures before
>> making any more edits. At least in my area, their edits have not only
>> failed to improve the dataset, but in a number of cases has actually
>> degraded it. Something needs to be done about this before things go too
>> far. I already have a lot of cleanup work ahead of me, and I'd like to
>> avoid this happening again in the future (at least by Telenav).
>>
>> Andrew
>> Victoria, BC, Canada
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From: *"James" <james2432 at gmail.com>
>> *To: *"John Marshall" <rps333 at gmail.com>
>> *Cc: *"talk-ca" <talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 19, 2016 11:44:53 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>>
>> Yeah no one really wants to do that, except maybe mapbox's india
>> contractors
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2016 2:43 PM, "John Marshall" <rps333 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Make sense to me. Adding turn restrictions is something I don't want to
>>> add.
>>> Happy to see all my Mapillary and OpenStreetView imagery being used to
>>> help improve the map.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Begin Daniel <jfd553 at hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Go with the recommended scheme as described on the wiki.
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Martijn van Exel [mailto:m at rtijn.org]
>>>> *Sent:* Monday, 17 October, 2016 23:53
>>>> *To:* Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
>>>> *Subject:* [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wanted to give you a heads up that my colleagues on the Telenav map
>>>> team are starting work on adding turn restrictions in Toronto, Montréal,
>>>> and later on also Vancouver, Ottawa and Calgary. We are using
>>>> OpenStreetView and Mapillary as sources. If you have any questions or
>>>> concerns, please reach out to me and we will address it right away.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For conditional (time-restricted) turn restrictions, we intend to use
>>>> the schema described in http://wiki.openstreetmap.o
>>>> rg/wiki/Conditional_restrictions. We encounter a more complex mapping
>>>> of conditional turn restrictions sometimes, where mappers have used day_on
>>>> / day_off and hour_on / hour_off. This is uncommon and as far as I know not
>>>> recommended for mapping time-restricted turn restrictions. If we encounter
>>>> these, our proposal would be to remove these tags and if necessary replace
>>>> them with the preferred scheme as described on the wiki. Opinions?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Martijn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>>> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20170326/374a66b1/attachment-0001.html>