[Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

Jack Burke burkejf3 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 25 08:48:44 UTC 2016


I have to disagree. If that's how to interpret  the tags, then the tagging definition is deficient. 

Under that interpretation, how do you tag a lane that both continues and branches off as an exit, but doesn't have signage that it continues? 


-- 
Typos courtesy of fancy auto spell technology

On August 25, 2016 1:22:58 AM EDT, David Mease <meased3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>According to the wiki, "none" means that there are no indications on
>the lane. The value "none;slight_right" says that there are both no
>indications and a slight right indication on the lane, which is of
>course impossible. These "scripted" edits are therefore a correct
>interpretation of the original tagging. The problem here is that the
>original tagging was incorrect.
>
>> On Aug 24, 2016, at 7:24 PM, Jack Burke <burkejf3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> And I, too, have a preference for using "none" instead of leaving and
>endless line of "|||||||||" to try to parse.  My eyesight isn't getting
>better as I get older.
>> 
>> Having said that, if that had been the only thing they did, I
>wouldn't have bothered saying anything.  But when their edits turned
>continuing lanes into exit-only lanes...well, then it became a
>*problem*.
>> 
>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Tod Fitch <tod at fitchdesign.com>
>wrote:
>>> I’m of half a mind to use a script to find the edits in my area
>where they changed something like “left|none|none|” to “left||” and
>then revert them manually.
>>> 
>>> I know they are both officially acceptable variations but for those
>of us editing by hand counting the occurrences of “|none” to make sure
>the lane count is correct and matches what is on the ground is harder
>than counting the “|” occurrences. At least it is for me and I’ve had
>decades of practice counting open and close parens to make sure
>compilers wouldn’t squawk at me because they weren’t balanced.
>>> 
>>> And while I haven’t seen a “none;slight_right”, it looks syntacticly
>correct and I can imagine cases where it might be used and would defer
>to the local mapper who used it. (The ones in my area are much more
>likely to be “through;slight_right”.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 24, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Jack Burke <burkejf3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> No, it's https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/193
>>>> 
>>>> And they appear to be telling me that the combination
>"none;slight_right" isn't valid.
>>>> 
>>>> Also, in their reply to me, they do specifically mention that they
>know none is valid, yet they're replacing it anyway.  And the worst
>part of it is that while they're using a script to *find* what they
>think is invalid, they're *manually* making the changes.
>>>> 
>>>> --jack
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Hans De Kryger
><hans.dekryger13 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The link Jack's talking about,
>>>>> 
>>>>> https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/180
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Hans
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Aug 24, 2016 4:09 PM, "Toby Murray" <toby.murray at gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>>>>> Mind sharing the link to the GitHub issue?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Do they think that "none" is an invalid option and are replacing
>it
>>>>>> with a blank globally? If so, this should be shut down
>immediately.
>>>>>> "none" and blank are both valid values and while I wouldn't mind
>>>>>> seeing it be consistent, any such edit would need to be discussed
>>>>>> before it is done.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Toby
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Jack Burke <burkejf3 at gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>>>>> > An active OSM group (leaving names, etc. out while they check
>out what I
>>>>>> > reported) is running a script or plug-in or challenge called
>"to-fix" that
>>>>>> > is apparently supposed to help fix incorrect turn:lanes values
>(and maybe
>>>>>> > other things, I haven't investigated deeply enough).
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > The problem is, it's breaking the values instead.  I found a
>section of road
>>>>>> > that I'd added turn:lanes to in order to provide lane guidance
>at an exit.
>>>>>> > My original value of "none|none|none|none|none;slight_right"
>was replaced by
>>>>>> > "||||slight_right".
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > While, per the wiki, there's nothing particularly wrong with a
>null value
>>>>>> > for a field vs. specifying "none" as the value, it *does* make
>a difference
>>>>>> > when there are two values in the field, as in my example above.
> They turned
>>>>>> > a continue-on-or-exit lane into an exit-only lane.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > So if you find broken lane guidance like that, with empty
>fields where
>>>>>> > "none" would also be appropriate, that's probably what
>happened.  Check the
>>>>>> > history on the way and see if you can backtrack what happened
>(fortunately,
>>>>>> > the group involved here included a url to a github issue where
>they are
>>>>>> > tracking what they're doing).
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Now I have 200 miles of Interstate to go back through and
>re-check.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > --jack
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>> > Talk-us mailing list
>>>>>> > Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>>>>>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>>>>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Talk-us mailing list
>>>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20160825/01a9522f/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-us mailing list