[Talk-us] Check your turn:lanes
burkejf3 at gmail.com
Thu Aug 25 17:53:07 UTC 2016
Paul, your examples are pretty much exactly what I've been doing, with the
exception that for the last one I was using:
because of the aforementioned discussion of whether or not to use "through"
On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Paul Johnson <baloo at ursamundi.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Jack Burke <burkejf3 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> So I take it that at least you and I are in agreement that the wiki is
>> deficient for branching exits like this one:
> Yes, that's correct. Moving a couple frames closer to
> http://mapillary.com/map/im/MsMAW3HKVNYxEVCtkRneBg, here's how I would
> tag three segments based on what's visible there and no other context:
> Ahead of camera after diverging ramp:
> ref=I 75
> The ramp from the physical gore (next to the exit sign) to the tip of the
> theoretical (painted) gore (with the node for the intersection being even
> with the theoretical gore):
> destination:ref=GA 32 (also, damn, had to check the minimap on that, I
> almost said MO 32 based on the shape).
> Behind the camera:
> ref=I 75
> Your Osmand "invention" example is a perfect case-study of what I'm
>> working on. I'm trying to get exits on I 75 in Georgia and Florida tagged
>> with destination and lane guidance so that Osmand can show proper guidance,
>> and hopefully other OSM-based navigation apps will add that feature, too.
>> As it stands, I use Osmand to test my tags.
> I've been testing this, as well. I'm fortunate enough to live in a city
> that has nearly every kind of interchange to play with (except for some of
> the newer CFI styles, but OKC and...for like, no reason, rural interchanges
> with basically no traffic on I 40 leading into the Ouachitas are getting
> those) and well enough aware of the tagging in play to have seen what works
> and what doesn't, now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us