[Talk-us] Turn restriction dispute

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Sun Feb 10 00:30:59 GMT 2013

A minor update, since NE2 refuses to handle this as a community:

Me: I'm no longer accepting input on this outside of the mailing list. If
you want to have any further opinion on this, post to the thread in
NE2: You know I can't do that. By refusing to discuss you forfeit.
Me: I'm not going to have this discussion with you someplace you can
declare victory independently in a vaccuum, that isn't how OpenStreetMap
works. You need to follow the thread and sort out your differences with the

Again, since the consensus is this restriction is a valid one despite what
NE2 is suggesting, I intend to revert the deletion.  Not sure who our
dispute management authorities are these days (since I'm not sure it's DWG
or not), but I'd like to know how to keep them in the loop on this.

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 6:23 PM, Apollinaris Schöll <aschoell at gmail.com>wrote:

> I looked a bit more and in many jurisdiction it's illegal anyway to go
> around a traffic jam  by exiting a freeway and go back direct on the next
> onramp. Even more reason to have a restriction. Tested Google maps and it
> will make a big detour to avoid this illegal straight on.
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
>> Good point, though was hoping someone in the Orlando area other than NE2
>> could weigh in (since this is a rare example of me chasing a Mapdust bug
>> out to his area).
>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Apollinaris Schöll <aschoell at gmail.com>wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>wrote:
>>>> NE2 is going on the "World according to NE2" bender again, need a
>>>> ruling on this relation before I revert:
>>>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/2249811
>>>> Turn in question is southbound World Drive at Buena Vista Drive in
>>>> Orlando, http://binged.it/128OlwZ.  Despite left turn only markings on
>>>> the southbound approach and a flush median gore preventing a straight-on
>>>> movement, NE2 is of the opinion, and removed the relation, on the excuse
>>>> that "Anyway, I've deleted the turn restriction, since I cannot recall
>>>> having seen any signs prohibiting the movement, and you have not seen any
>>>> such signs because you have not been there." Never mind that the left
>>>> turn only sign is clearly marked on the pavement. He questioned the legal
>>>> standing of the marking since it omits "ONLY," despite the fact that
>>>> section 4.2.1 of the Florida Traffic Engineering Manual requires ONLY to be
>>>> omitted in situations such as the ramp in question (a straight/left arrow
>>>> would be required for a through-or-left-turn lane).
>>>> Who's right?
>>> You. it's clearly signed on the pavement. We are no lawyers to challenge
>>> his interpretation in court. So as long as no one gets a ticket and wins
>>> the court case it's the right thing to have a restriction.
>>> And NE2 is known for fighting just for the fight. I come across tons of
>>> crap from him in areas he has never seen. I fix it and don't even consider
>>> to contact him.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20130209/cf3d2a60/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list