[Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes

David Mease meased3 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 25 16:58:10 UTC 2016

>From the wiki:

The *turn*=* key can be used to specify the *indicated* direction in which
a way or a lane will lead. It is used on the way segment from the first
indication via *road markings*, *signposts* or similar indications to the
junction or completion of merge. If you instead want to specify legal
turning restrictions please see the article about the restriction relation

The turn:lanes schema is for identifying the painted/signed lane marking
arrows, not for describing where you can legally go from that lane. That's
what the turn restriction relation is for.

Putting "through" on a lane means that there is a straight arrow painted on
it. Putting "none" on a lane means that there is no marking.

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Jack Burke <burkejf3 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Even if the road isn't signed that way?  The use of "through" when there
> is no explicit marking to that effect seems to be contraindicated by the
> wiki.
> Don't get me wrong--I don't see why we _couldn't_ use it when that is the
> obvious traffic direction, even with the lack of explicit signage.  But if
> that's how we want to use "through" then shouldn't we update the wiki to be
> more clear?
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org>
> wrote:
>> 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".
>> You may want to try through|through|through|through|through;slight_right
>> as the value; I've noticed routers that actually use this data struggle
>> with null or none values, which isn't *entirely* unreasonable, but the
>> former does describe the allowed movements even if the DOT doesn't feel the
>> need to explicitly paint it out.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160825/4c832b5c/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-us mailing list