[Talk-us] Proposed automated motorway_link mass edit

Dave Hansen dave at sr71.net
Fri Jul 17 16:58:15 BST 2009


On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 10:27 -0500, David Lynch wrote: 
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:10, Russ Nelson<russ at cloudmade.com> wrote:
> >  An even more aggressive fix would be to
> > disconnect everything that isn't a motorway_link.  That's probably
> > correct, but more aggressive than I would choose to implement.
> 
> Not a good idea at all, IMO. I can think of numerous places within 50
> miles of my home where, due to existing highways being upgraded to
> motorway or towns being bypassed by freeway/motorway-grade highway,
> there are nodes which have both motorway and non-motorway ways
> connected, because the motorway lanes empty directly onto the old
> highway

Yeah, you definitely have to be careful.  It's OK for a motorway to
touch:

1. another motorway
2. a motorway_link
3. a non-mototorway, but only at its *END* node.  Not at its beginning
   node
4. "service" roads.  Our friendly police officers love to use these
   little spurs to hide for speed traps in Oregon. :)

Here's where I-72 ends, for instance.  This really is a full motorway
and I wouldn't call it a motorway_link even up until the point where it
runs into a stoplight:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=40.12193&lon=-88.28141&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF

-- Dave





More information about the Talk-us mailing list