[Talk-GB] traffic island mapping / harmful detail? - landuse features and highways

[Tom Crocker]

I've also read the contributions on traffic islands with interest. I'm a
novice so don't have any wisdom to impart, but I have been reading the wiki
pages a lot. My initial instinct was that if we weren't mapping highway
areas it made sense to map the other landuse into the highway space (with
hindsight that was mainly about rendering). I understood from the wiki that
the widely preferred approach was to end the landuse at the edge of the
road/pavement, and in practice that's proved easier to work with for me. So
for a grass verge I'd draw a way around the grass itself. That's then ready
for adding a kerb or wall if you want. As a bonus I now prefer the way that
renders and don't have to decide where to draw imaginary grass. I don't
usually split the landuse around the highway if it seems to me like the
highway is just overlaying or part of the land use, e.g. drives over a
verge, track over a meadow, residential road in a residential area.

Hope that helps

Tom

On Wed, 31 Mar 2021, 19:13 Nick Allen, <nick.allen.54 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Tallguy here.
>
> Thank you for the opinions on this, it is very helpful, and I think I'll
> be reviewing many islands and junctions for the foreseeable future.
>
> While I'm working away at the junctions and islands it would make sense to
> also work on the landuse features if that needs doing. The wiki entries are
> not conclusive as far as I can see. My own preference has been to place the
> nodes of the landuse object, such as a grass verge, close to, but not
> joined to, the highway nodes.
>
> Regards
>
> Nick
>
> On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 15:27 +0100, Andy G Wood wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 31 March 2021 15:03:32 BST Adam Snape wrote:
> [..]
>
> Splitting ways for simple traffic islands is a bit like mapping separate
> sidewalks along every road. I don't do it because it's micro-mapping which
> creates lots of extra complexity and hassle for little gain, but I don't
> think it's 'wrong' as such.
>
>
> I wholeheartedly agree.
>
> Andy.
>
>
>
> This email and any attachments are intended solely for the use of the
> named recipients. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use,
> disclose, copy or distribute this email or any of its attachments and
> should notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your
> system. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) has taken every reasonable
> precaution to minimise risk of this email or any attachments containing
> viruses or malware but the recipient should carry out its own virus and
> malware checks before opening the attachments. UKRI does not accept any
> liability for any losses or damages which the recipient may sustain due to
> presence of any viruses. Opinions, conclusions or other information in this
> message and attachments that are not related directly to UKRI business are
> solely those of the author and do not represent the views of UKRI.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20210331/5bd06e69/attachment-0001.htm>