[Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions

Julian Loke osm at 360pan.com
Sun Mar 26 17:43:17 UTC 2017


Hi List,

The wiki has guidance for the situation where a restriction applies throughout an entire jurisdiction:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction 

"When a particular turn restriction is _the default_ for a given jurisdiction _and_ is _not signed don't map them_. It is much better to ensure that routing engines embody the regional rule rather than mapping every occurrence as a turn restriction..." 

Do you think that the wiki applies to the situation under discussion in BC?

Cheers
Julian Loke

On March 26, 2017 8:40:39 AM PDT, Andrew Lester <a-lester at shaw.ca> wrote:
>Thanks for the input. The Motor Vehicle Act is written in legalese and
>therefore hard to decipher, but I think you've raised enough points
>that I'm going to look into it further. I had already removed some of
>the right turn restrictions, but I can add them back in if I determine
>that such turns are indeed illegal. I don't see people make these turns
>very often. It's usually only if someone has stopped at the red light
>waiting to go through or turn left, but then changes their mind and
>turns right instead. I always had the understanding that it was legal
>to do so, but I may have been led astray. I'll see if I can consult
>someone familiar with BC's driving laws and I'll report back here so
>other mappers will know too. 
>
>There's still the matter of armchair mapping wiping out on-the-ground
>mapping. This is something that always happens occasionally, and I can
>live with the occasional instance, but the volume of mapping being
>undertaken by Telenav means this is now happening too often to be
>acceptable. Their mappers need to be given more guidance about what to
>do and what not to do. 
>
>Andrew 
>
>
>From: "Ian Bruseker" <ian.bruseker at gmail.com> 
>To: "a-lester" <a-lester at shaw.ca> 
>Cc: "James" <james2432 at gmail.com>, "talk-ca"
><talk-ca at openstreetmap.org> 
>Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2017 11:05:53 PM 
>Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Telenav mapping turn restrictions 
>
>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: 
>
>BQ_BEGIN
>
>Make sense to me. A dding 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: 
>
>BQ_BEGIN
>
>
>
>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.org/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 
>
>
>BQ_END
>
>
>_______________________________________________ 
>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 
>
>
>BQ_END



More information about the Talk-ca mailing list