[Tagging] Difference between building=grandstand and leisure=bleachers

[Tomasz Wójcik]

Reading descriptions of these two tags:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dgrandstand

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=bleachers

the conclusion is that grandstand have a roof above and bleachers 
doesn't. Do I understand it correctly? If yes, I want to emphasize it in 
the Wiki documentaton.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Difference between building=grandstand and leisure=bleachers

[Javier Sánchez Portero]

The definition of the tag building=grandstand says that they are "usually"
roofed, this implies that not always are roofed. I understand that the tag
leisure=bleachers is discouraged for not being British English.

Javier

2018-04-04 8:27 GMT+01:00 Tomasz Wójcik :

> Reading descriptions of these two tags:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dgrandstand
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=bleachers
>
> the conclusion is that grandstand have a roof above and bleachers doesn't.
> Do I understand it correctly? If yes, I want to emphasize it in the Wiki
> documentaton.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastal beach definition for mapping.

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 04 April 2018, Warin wrote:
>
> So a 'beach' may include a 'tidal flat' ... confused.

I tried to explain the difference - a beach is primarily shaped by waves 
while a tidal flat is shaped by tidal currents.

The domination of waves can usually be seen in the form of a smooth 
surface where structures (like waves in the slope) typically form 
parallel to the shore.  Like here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_beach_1.JPG

On tidal flats OTOH the water flow often form small or large channels 
like here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Waikaraka_Cycleway_from_Mangere_Bridge_IV.jpg

Beaches can only form from relatively coarse material (sand or 
coarser) - fine silt cannot form beaches because it does not settle 
fast enough in the fast moving water so the beach would quickly erode 
away.  Tidal flats can form both from fine silt and coarse sand.

At coasts with a significant tidal range (like in the UK) there is often 
a beach in the upper part of the tidal range with a steeper slope and 
coarse sand and a tidal flat with less slope with either sand as well 
or finer material.

Example:

https://mc.bbbike.org/mc/?lon=-4.390229&lat=51.716636&zoom=14&num=3&mt0=bing-satellite&mt1=mapnik&mt2=google-satellite

In the upper part this is clearly a beach (as visible in the Bing image 
with high water level).  In the lower part with the tidal channels 
visible in the Google image it is clearly a tidal flat.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Difference between building=grandstand and leisure=bleachers

[Philip Barnes]

On 4 April 2018 08:44:08 BST, "Javier Sánchez Portero"  
wrote:
>The definition of the tag building=grandstand says that they are
>"usually"
>roofed, this implies that not always are roofed. 
My view is that a grandstand is a solid building and will contain services for 
spectators such as toilets, fast food, bars, restaurants and changing rooms. 

Mostly associated with professional sport. 

Bleachers are open structures, usually associated with American High School and 
University sports. 

I understand that the
>tag
>leisure=bleachers is discouraged for not being British English.
Why? As a native speaker of British English I can see nothing wrong with 
Bleachers, there is no word in BE to describe these as they are not suitable 
for a Northern European climate. 

I think the key difference is a building v open frame structure. 

Phil (trigpoint) 
>
>
>2018-04-04 8:27 GMT+01:00 Tomasz Wójcik :
>
>> Reading descriptions of these two tags:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Dgrandstand
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=bleachers
>>
>> the conclusion is that grandstand have a roof above and bleachers
>doesn't.
>> Do I understand it correctly? If yes, I want to emphasize it in the
>Wiki
>> documentaton.
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Difference between building=grandstand and leisure=bleachers

[Javier Sánchez Portero]

2018-04-04 9:30 GMT+01:00 Philip Barnes :

>
>
> On 4 April 2018 08:44:08 BST, "Javier Sánchez Portero" <
> javiers...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bleachers are open structures, usually associated with American High
> School and University sports.
>
> I understand that the
> >tag
> >leisure=bleachers is discouraged for not being British English.
> Why? As a native speaker of British English I can see nothing wrong with
> Bleachers, there is no word in BE to describe these as they are not
> suitable for a Northern European climate.
>
> I think the key difference is a building v open frame structure.
>
> Phil (trigpoint)
>
>
I'm not a native speaker, but that is what says the red warning in

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leisure=bleachers

The open frame structure type is very common where I live (28ºN) and I
suppose that in many other parts of the world. In this definition

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grandstand

It says a structure with seats without implying if it's a building or an
open frame. Maybe the correct use could be building=grandstand and
leisure=grandstand deprecating leisure=bleacher

Otherwise, the warning should be removed from leisure=bleacher because it
discourages to use this tag.

Javier
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Difference between building=grandstand and leisure=bleachers

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

in case you want to be more explicit, maybe covered=yes/no makes some sense?


Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastal beach definition for mapping.

[Warin]

On 04/04/18 18:18, Christoph Hormann wrote:

On Wednesday 04 April 2018, Warin wrote:

So a 'beach' may include a 'tidal flat' ... confused.

I tried to explain the difference - a beach is primarily shaped by waves
while a tidal flat is shaped by tidal currents.

The domination of waves can usually be seen in the form of a smooth
surface where structures (like waves in the slope) typically form
parallel to the shore.  Like here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_beach_1.JPG

On tidal flats OTOH the water flow often form small or large channels
like here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Waikaraka_Cycleway_from_Mangere_Bridge_IV.jpg

Beaches can only form from relatively coarse material (sand or
coarser) - fine silt cannot form beaches because it does not settle
fast enough in the fast moving water so the beach would quickly erode
away.  Tidal flats can form both from fine silt and coarse sand.

At coasts with a significant tidal range (like in the UK) there is often
a beach in the upper part of the tidal range with a steeper slope and
coarse sand and a tidal flat with less slope with either sand as well
or finer material.

Example:

https://mc.bbbike.org/mc/?lon=-4.390229&lat=51.716636&zoom=14&num=3&mt0=bing-satellite&mt1=mapnik&mt2=google-satellite


That is a very nice example, thanks  I'd call them 'mud flats' ... :)

Broome, Western Australia has tides of ~10 meters  and is know for the 
'Staircase to the Moon Festival'
where the moon is reflected off the beach/tidal flats ripples to form a stair 
case up to the moon, very pretty ...
But I'm not certain if that is a tidal flat area or not ... the imagery does 
not revel it ..

https://mc.bbbike.org/mc/?lon=-4.390229&lat=51.716636&zoom=14&num=3&mt0=bing-satellite&mt1=mapnik&mt2=google-satellite

Arrr the visitors centre says tidal flats ..
http://www.visitbroome.com.au/discover/facts-figures/staircase-to-the-moon
There are better photos of the staircase .. http://jksj.org/2015/06/10/broome/

I'd still map the sand area as the beach as seen in the imagery,
think the 'tidal flat' would have one edge as the beach edge and the rest be 
further out to sea.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastal beach definition for mapping.

[Dave Swarthout]

This is an interesting problem but it has no easy solution. Even if the
Wiki definition was clear, unless you happen to be able to measure or
otherwise determine the "mean high tide" line and other important
characteristics, what we map as beach or tidal flat is purely an
approximation, especially in areas having a large tidal range, as in Alaska
where I do the bulk of my mapping (20-30 feet). Satellite imagery may offer
a clear vision of beach and tidal flat but we cannot determine the height
of the tide when the photo was obtained. Was it at high tide, low tide, or
somewhere in between?

I agree that a beach is a place where wave action has created a relatively
steep slope. Other areas closer to the sea are flatter and are often
composed of finer particles, fine sand and clay, often referred to as mud.
Indeed, much of Alaska's coastline could be characterized as mud_flat due
to the large amount of solids Alaskan rivers transport to the ocean. In my
hometown of Homer, Alaska, spring low tides can be so extreme that the
water beyond the mud_flat is too distant to see. What you can see is mud,
lots of it.

Taginfo tells us that neither mud_flat or tidal_flat (or variations without
the underscore separator) are much in use, however, for some of my mapping
I've used the combination
natural=wetland
wetland=tidalflat (but it could just as easily be wetland=mudflat)

I've drawn those areas the best I can based on convenient satellite imagery
knowing full well it's merely a rough approximation. There may not be a
better solution.

Cheers,
Dave

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 4:53 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 04/04/18 18:18, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 04 April 2018, Warin wrote:
>>
>>> So a 'beach' may include a 'tidal flat' ... confused.
>>>
>> I tried to explain the difference - a beach is primarily shaped by waves
>> while a tidal flat is shaped by tidal currents.
>>
>> The domination of waves can usually be seen in the form of a smooth
>> surface where structures (like waves in the slope) typically form
>> parallel to the shore.  Like here:
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_beach_1.JPG
>>
>> On tidal flats OTOH the water flow often form small or large channels
>> like here:
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Waikaraka_Cycleway_f
>> rom_Mangere_Bridge_IV.jpg
>>
>> Beaches can only form from relatively coarse material (sand or
>> coarser) - fine silt cannot form beaches because it does not settle
>> fast enough in the fast moving water so the beach would quickly erode
>> away.  Tidal flats can form both from fine silt and coarse sand.
>>
>> At coasts with a significant tidal range (like in the UK) there is often
>> a beach in the upper part of the tidal range with a steeper slope and
>> coarse sand and a tidal flat with less slope with either sand as well
>> or finer material.
>>
>> Example:
>>
>> https://mc.bbbike.org/mc/?lon=-4.390229&lat=51.716636&zoom=1
>> 4&num=3&mt0=bing-satellite&mt1=mapnik&mt2=google-satellite
>>
>
> That is a very nice example, thanks  I'd call them 'mud flats' ... :)
>
> Broome, Western Australia has tides of ~10 meters  and is know for the
> 'Staircase to the Moon Festival'
> where the moon is reflected off the beach/tidal flats ripples to form a
> stair case up to the moon, very pretty ...
> But I'm not certain if that is a tidal flat area or not ... the imagery
> does not revel it ..
>
> https://mc.bbbike.org/mc/?lon=-4.390229&lat=51.716636&zoom=1
> 4&num=3&mt0=bing-satellite&mt1=mapnik&mt2=google-satellite
>
> Arrr the visitors centre says tidal flats ..
> http://www.visitbroome.com.au/discover/facts-figures/staircase-to-the-moon
> There are better photos of the staircase .. http://jksj.org/2015/06/10/bro
> ome/
>
> I'd still map the sand area as the beach as seen in the imagery,
> think the 'tidal flat' would have one edge as the beach edge and the rest
> be further out to sea.
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastal beach definition for mapping.

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> the coastline should represent the limit of the sea, in case of a river
> flowing in, people look at the level of salt in the water and whether the
> level of the river is influenced by tides (afaik)
>

It seems some mappers go to the extreme opposite and map the coastline
across the mouth of an estuary that is clearly part of the ocean:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186710973
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastal beach definition for mapping.

[Dave Swarthout]

 Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
It seems some mappers go to the extreme opposite and map the coastline
across the mouth of an estuary that is clearly part of the ocean:

Yes, they do this because it's fast and they may have other more pressing
issues to deal with at the moment. It's also non-controversial in the sense
that it's not actually "wrong", it's merely inaccurate. Someone with more
time or motivation can come in later to do it more thoroughly.

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar 
wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> the coastline should represent the limit of the sea, in case of a river
>> flowing in, people look at the level of salt in the water and whether the
>> level of the river is influenced by tides (afaik)
>>
>
> It seems some mappers go to the extreme opposite and map the coastline
> across the mouth of an estuary that is clearly part of the ocean:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186710973
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] landuse=forest + ref=* : parcel number or what?

[David Marchal]

Hello, there.


I hope this will not start a flamewar: I noticed that, despite being widely 
used, ref=* is not rendered for landuse=forest. I assumed this was used for 
parcel (compartment) numbers, as this tag seems to fit the definition of a 
parcel number; nevertheless, I saw on a Github issue of the main style that 
this usage of ref=* on landuse=forest was unproven and that it ref=* not be 
assumed to contain the parcel number. Besides, it seems that the wiki doesn't 
document this use of ref=*. Making some use of Overpass turbo seems to indicate 
that ref=* is indeed used for parcel numbers; there is also 
boundary=forest_compartment relations, but they seem to be far less used, and 
mainly in Russia. I would like to document this specific use of ref=*, but, 
before, are there use cases where ref=* is used with landuse=forest for 
something, or are such uses errors, or marginal enough to ignore them?


Awaiting your answers,


Regards.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastal beach definition for mapping.

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 7:40 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 9:22 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> wrote:
>>u
>> the coastline should represent the limit of the sea, in case of a river
>> flowing in, people look at the level of salt in the water and whether the
>> level of the river is influenced by tides (afaik)
>
>
> It seems some mappers go to the extreme opposite and map the coastline
> across the mouth of an estuary that is clearly part of the ocean:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186710973

How something is called and thought of by the locals is also taken into account.

Example: The Hudson River is hard to draw a firm boundary on. If one
were to take the position that "any shoreline with a measurable tide
is part of the coastline," then the coastline extends all the way up
to the Federal Dam in Troy, New York:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/90929525

It's still obviously a river up there. The water is fresh, and flows
quite strongly in one direction. (When the tide is rising, it flows a
little less strongly. It never reverses.)

Drawing the salt front would be ambiguous by tens of km. In a wet
season, its a highly diffuse front near the entrance to the Tappan Zee
(note to self: make a relation for the waterbody!)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/318106482 but in a drought it can
retreat as far as the Poughkeepsie Bridge
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24185107 or even farther. Even where
it's brackish, it's still called a 'river,' and if you said that it
was 'coastline,' the locals would look at you as if you had two heads.

People seem to agree that the piers in Manhattan where the big ships
dock are on the coast, so the line is drawn somewhat arbitrarily north
of Spuyten Duyvil https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/135719690.

I'm not going to say that the local mappers are wrong, even though the
estuary is deep enough that vessels of considerable draft can sail
into Albany. There's a WW2-vintage destroyer moored there on
more-or-less permanent display. She got there under her own steam. In
historic times, the Albany riverfront would display a small forest of
ships' masts - but it's always been called a riverport, not a seaport.
A sailing vessel would have to kedge the faster sections of the river.
I pity those who had to man the capstan.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastal beach definition for mapping.

[Malcolm Herring]

On 04/04/2018 12:40, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
It seems some mappers go to the extreme opposite and map the coastline 
across the mouth of an estuary that is clearly part of the ocean:





Many ocean/river boundaries are not arbitrary, but reflect official 
boundaries where a coastal authority's water ends and a river 
authority's water begins.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastal beach definition for mapping.

[Derya Dilmen (Insight Global Inc)]

Thank you much, that is me who did it, my mistake, I was trying to cover a 
coastline for the marine structures, the boundaries were following the same 
coastline and there was an island inside the estuary that the coastline was 
defined.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=15/-33.6465/151.2835



-Original Message-
From: Malcolm Herring [mailto:malcolm.herr...@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2018 9:15 AM
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Coastal beach definition for mapping.

On 04/04/2018 12:40, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> It seems some mappers go to the extreme opposite and map the coastline 
> across the mouth of an estuary that is clearly part of the ocean:
> 
>  openstreetmap.org%2Fway%2F186710973&data=02%7C01%7Cv-dedilm%40microsof
> t.com%7C9be8454d51d04876525808d59a479ea0%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd01
> 1db47%7C1%7C0%7C636584554761019595&sdata=pz351Prv1unpcfyM3cgLSV6m6dtTE
> WVfF1dFNeBbLYE%3D&reserved=0>

Many ocean/river boundaries are not arbitrary, but reflect official boundaries 
where a coastal authority's water ends and a river authority's water begins.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftagging&data=02%7C01%7Cv-dedilm%40microsoft.com%7C9be8454d51d04876525808d59a479ea0%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636584554761019595&sdata=FTVfPSiu1Kw2B15MtE3MVJvE1p6Ef%2BPmM72W5Jl1Fdc%3D&reserved=0
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Coastal beach definition for mapping.

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 04 April 2018, Malcolm Herring wrote:
> > It seems some mappers go to the extreme opposite and map the
> > coastline across the mouth of an estuary that is clearly part of
> > the ocean:
> >
> > 
>
> Many ocean/river boundaries are not arbitrary, but reflect official
> boundaries where a coastal authority's water ends and a river
> authority's water begins.

There is no such thing as an ocean/river boundary - there are political 
boundaries and there are limits of physical geography features.  When 
mappers align geometries of physical geography features (like 
natural=water, waterway=riverbank or natural=coastline) to 
administrative boundaries or baselines that is always wrong and is 
usually done to communicate a certain non-verifiable view of the 
physical reality to underline certain political goals - in case of the 
Rio de la Plata this is the aim to defend the claims Argentina and 
Uruguay make regarding the limits of their territorial waters (which 
are internationally disputed):

http://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1790&context=nrj
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/57675.pdf

Independent of that the placement of the coastline at river mouths is 
generally somewhat variable.  I wrote a proposal a few years back aimed 
at defining some verifiable limits for that:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

[osm.tagging]

I've noticed that someone from the Microsoft Open Map team is very busy
adding turn restrictions all over the place (
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/shawat94/ ).

 

In my local neighbourhood, I noticed that he added no_u_turn restrictions to
all the nodes where a road into in/out of a roundabout is splitting (because
of physical separation). Which basically amounts to 4 no_u_turn restrictions
for every single roundabout.

 

e.g. here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57747093

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57674063

 

There is no actual no_u_turn sign in any of these locations, it's just
(mostly) physically a bad idea to attempt a u-turn here.

 

Just a few weeks ago I discussed exactly this in #osm and the conclusion was
that it was neither necessary nor desirable to do this.

 

I made a comment about that to the first of the two changesets linked above,
but haven't gotten a reply.

 

So, what is the general opinion about this here? Should these turn
restrictions be created or not?

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

[Tod Fitch]

Seems like tagging “noise” to me. I’d expect a router to use the roundabout 
itself because exiting, making a U turn and then re-entering the roundabout 
will be longer and thus slower. Since the no U turn relations are there to make 
routing work and a reasonable router won’t need them, I’d say they are “noise”. 
If I were to go in to fix something on that intersection, I’d probably remove 
the no U turn restriction(s). But I don’t think I’d go out of my way to find 
them.

Cheers!

> On Apr 4, 2018, at 4:36 PM, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
> 
> I’ve noticed that someone from the Microsoft Open Map team is very busy 
> adding turn restrictions all over the place ( 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/shawat94/ 
>  ).
>  
> In my local neighbourhood, I noticed that he added no_u_turn restrictions to 
> all the nodes where a road into in/out of a roundabout is splitting (because 
> of physical separation). Which basically amounts to 4 no_u_turn restrictions 
> for every single roundabout.
>  
> e.g. here:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57747093 
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57674063 
> 
>  
> There is no actual no_u_turn sign in any of these locations, it’s just 
> (mostly) physically a bad idea to attempt a u-turn here.
>  
> Just a few weeks ago I discussed exactly this in #osm and the conclusion was 
> that it was neither necessary nor desirable to do this.
>  
> I made a comment about that to the first of the two changesets linked above, 
> but haven’t gotten a reply.
>  
> So, what is the general opinion about this here? Should these turn 
> restrictions be created or not?
>  
> Cheers,
> Thorsten
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
> 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

[Jo]

That is absurd behaviour. Seems like somebody programmed a bot.

Polyglot

2018-04-05 1:49 GMT+02:00 Tod Fitch :

> Seems like tagging “noise” to me. I’d expect a router to use the
> roundabout itself because exiting, making a U turn and then re-entering the
> roundabout will be longer and thus slower. Since the no U turn relations
> are there to make routing work and a reasonable router won’t need them, I’d
> say they are “noise”. If I were to go in to fix something on that
> intersection, I’d probably remove the no U turn restriction(s). But I don’t
> think I’d go out of my way to find them.
>
> Cheers!
>
> On Apr 4, 2018, at 4:36 PM, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
>
> I’ve noticed that someone from the Microsoft Open Map team is very busy
> adding turn restrictions all over the place ( https://www.openstreetmap.
> org/user/shawat94/ ).
>
> In my local neighbourhood, I noticed that he added no_u_turn restrictions
> to all the nodes where a road into in/out of a roundabout is splitting
> (because of physical separation). Which basically amounts to 4 no_u_turn
> restrictions for every single roundabout.
>
> e.g. here:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57747093
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57674063
>
> There is no actual no_u_turn sign in any of these locations, it’s just
> (mostly) physically a bad idea to attempt a u-turn here.
>
> Just a few weeks ago I discussed exactly this in #osm and the conclusion
> was that it was neither necessary nor desirable to do this.
>
> I made a comment about that to the first of the two changesets linked
> above, but haven’t gotten a reply.
>
> So, what is the general opinion about this here? Should these turn
> restrictions be created or not?
>
> Cheers,
> Thorsten
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

[osm.tagging]

Well, the edits seem to be made in JOSM, and the speed seems to be too low to 
be a bot. So I do think they are made by hand.

 

But this (and tens of other changesets are all titled "Added turn restrictions 
source: Probe”. I don’t know what “Probe” is, but I assume it’s some automated 
tool somebody wrote to find these supposedly “missing” turn restrictions. And 
now somebody is following the output of that tool to enter the turn 
restrictions into OSM.

 

Which really doesn’t make much sense to me, because of some tool is able to 
determine that this isn’t a good place to turn, then router software can do the 
same and doesn’t need explicit turn restrictions in OSM.

 

Especially given that (in my understanding) turn restrictions are meant to 
directly reflect a legal turn restriction that is signed “on the ground” with 
either signs or road markings, which these are not. 

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Jo  
Sent: Thursday, 5 April 2018 09:53
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a 
roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

 

That is absurd behaviour. Seems like somebody programmed a bot.

 

Polyglot

 

2018-04-05 1:49 GMT+02:00 Tod Fitch mailto:t...@fitchdesign.com> >:

Seems like tagging “noise” to me. I’d expect a router to use the roundabout 
itself because exiting, making a U turn and then re-entering the roundabout 
will be longer and thus slower. Since the no U turn relations are there to make 
routing work and a reasonable router won’t need them, I’d say they are “noise”. 
If I were to go in to fix something on that intersection, I’d probably remove 
the no U turn restriction(s). But I don’t think I’d go out of my way to find 
them.

 

Cheers!

 

On Apr 4, 2018, at 4:36 PM, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
  wrote:

 

I’ve noticed that someone from the Microsoft Open Map team is very busy adding 
turn restrictions all over the place (  
 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/shawat94/ ).

 

In my local neighbourhood, I noticed that he added no_u_turn restrictions to 
all the nodes where a road into in/out of a roundabout is splitting (because of 
physical separation). Which basically amounts to 4 no_u_turn restrictions for 
every single roundabout.

 

e.g. here:

  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57747093

  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57674063

 

There is no actual no_u_turn sign in any of these locations, it’s just (mostly) 
physically a bad idea to attempt a u-turn here.

 

Just a few weeks ago I discussed exactly this in #osm and the conclusion was 
that it was neither necessary nor desirable to do this.

 

I made a comment about that to the first of the two changesets linked above, 
but haven’t gotten a reply.

 

So, what is the general opinion about this here? Should these turn restrictions 
be created or not?

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

___
Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org  
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

[Clifford Snow]

I don't see any changeset comments in either of the two you referenced. I
would suggest adding a changeset comment to get their attention.

You can also look on their github page to see what they are working on.
https://github.com/Microsoft/Open-Maps/issues

Best,
Clifford

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:23 PM,  wrote:

> Well, the edits seem to be made in JOSM, and the speed seems to be too low
> to be a bot. So I do think they are made by hand.
>
>
>
> But this (and tens of other changesets are all titled "Added turn
> restrictions source: Probe”. I don’t know what “Probe” is, but I assume
> it’s some automated tool somebody wrote to find these supposedly “missing”
> turn restrictions. And now somebody is following the output of that tool to
> enter the turn restrictions into OSM.
>
>
>
> Which really doesn’t make much sense to me, because of some tool is able
> to determine that this isn’t a good place to turn, then router software can
> do the same and doesn’t need explicit turn restrictions in OSM.
>
>
>
> Especially given that (in my understanding) turn restrictions are meant to
> directly reflect a legal turn restriction that is signed “on the ground”
> with either signs or road markings, which these are not.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thorsten
>
>
>
> *From:* Jo 
> *Sent:* Thursday, 5 April 2018 09:53
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into
> a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?
>
>
>
> That is absurd behaviour. Seems like somebody programmed a bot.
>
>
>
> Polyglot
>
>
>
> 2018-04-05 1:49 GMT+02:00 Tod Fitch :
>
> Seems like tagging “noise” to me. I’d expect a router to use the
> roundabout itself because exiting, making a U turn and then re-entering the
> roundabout will be longer and thus slower. Since the no U turn relations
> are there to make routing work and a reasonable router won’t need them, I’d
> say they are “noise”. If I were to go in to fix something on that
> intersection, I’d probably remove the no U turn restriction(s). But I don’t
> think I’d go out of my way to find them.
>
>
>
> Cheers!
>
>
>
> On Apr 4, 2018, at 4:36 PM, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au wrote:
>
>
>
> I’ve noticed that someone from the Microsoft Open Map team is very busy
> adding turn restrictions all over the place ( https://www.openstreetmap.
> org/user/shawat94/ ).
>
>
>
> In my local neighbourhood, I noticed that he added no_u_turn restrictions
> to all the nodes where a road into in/out of a roundabout is splitting
> (because of physical separation). Which basically amounts to 4 no_u_turn
> restrictions for every single roundabout.
>
>
>
> e.g. here:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57747093
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57674063
>
>
>
> There is no actual no_u_turn sign in any of these locations, it’s just
> (mostly) physically a bad idea to attempt a u-turn here.
>
>
>
> Just a few weeks ago I discussed exactly this in #osm and the conclusion
> was that it was neither necessary nor desirable to do this.
>
>
>
> I made a comment about that to the first of the two changesets linked
> above, but haven’t gotten a reply.
>
>
>
> So, what is the general opinion about this here? Should these turn
> restrictions be created or not?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thorsten
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

[osm.tagging]

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57747093

 

shows the following for me, are you not seeing this?

 

Comment from Ds5rUy   2 days ago 

What's the rational for adding the no_u_turn restrictions for every single 
entry/exit to a roundabout where there are two physically separated ways?

We discussed exactly that in the #osm channel a few weeks ago, and IIRC came to 
the conclusion that this is not necessary or desirable.

There are no "no u-turn" signs at these locations, it's simply physically a 
really stupid idea to attempt a u-turn there.

Which is something that routing software should be able to derive from the 
geometry of the ways.

AFAIK, restriction relations are meant to represent signed legal restrictions 
only.

 

 

From: Clifford Snow  
Sent: Thursday, 5 April 2018 12:11
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a 
roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

 

I don't see any changeset comments in either of the two you referenced. I would 
suggest adding a changeset comment to get their attention.

 

You can also look on their github page to see what they are working on. 
https://github.com/Microsoft/Open-Maps/issues

 

Best,

Clifford

 

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:23 PM, mailto:osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

Well, the edits seem to be made in JOSM, and the speed seems to be too low to 
be a bot. So I do think they are made by hand.

 

But this (and tens of other changesets are all titled "Added turn restrictions 
source: Probe”. I don’t know what “Probe” is, but I assume it’s some automated 
tool somebody wrote to find these supposedly “missing” turn restrictions. And 
now somebody is following the output of that tool to enter the turn 
restrictions into OSM.

 

Which really doesn’t make much sense to me, because of some tool is able to 
determine that this isn’t a good place to turn, then router software can do the 
same and doesn’t need explicit turn restrictions in OSM.

 

Especially given that (in my understanding) turn restrictions are meant to 
directly reflect a legal turn restriction that is signed “on the ground” with 
either signs or road markings, which these are not. 

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Jo mailto:winfi...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Thursday, 5 April 2018 09:53
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a 
roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

 

That is absurd behaviour. Seems like somebody programmed a bot.

 

Polyglot

 

2018-04-05 1:49 GMT+02:00 Tod Fitch mailto:t...@fitchdesign.com> >:

Seems like tagging “noise” to me. I’d expect a router to use the roundabout 
itself because exiting, making a U turn and then re-entering the roundabout 
will be longer and thus slower. Since the no U turn relations are there to make 
routing work and a reasonable router won’t need them, I’d say they are “noise”. 
If I were to go in to fix something on that intersection, I’d probably remove 
the no U turn restriction(s). But I don’t think I’d go out of my way to find 
them.

 

Cheers!

 

On Apr 4, 2018, at 4:36 PM, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
  wrote:

 

I’ve noticed that someone from the Microsoft Open Map team is very busy adding 
turn restrictions all over the place (  
 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/shawat94/ ).

 

In my local neighbourhood, I noticed that he added no_u_turn restrictions to 
all the nodes where a road into in/out of a roundabout is splitting (because of 
physical separation). Which basically amounts to 4 no_u_turn restrictions for 
every single roundabout.

 

e.g. here:

  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57747093

  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57674063

 

There is no actual no_u_turn sign in any of these locations, it’s just (mostly) 
physically a bad idea to attempt a u-turn here.

 

Just a few weeks ago I discussed exactly this in #osm and the conclusion was 
that it was neither necessary nor desirable to do this.

 

I made a comment about that to the first of the two changesets linked above, 
but haven’t gotten a reply.

 

So, what is the general opinion about this here? Should these turn restrictions 
be created or not?

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

___
Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org  
https://lists.openstree

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

[osm.tagging]

Looking at the issues, I can’t actually find any that matches the activity 
currently performed by that user (and new turn restrictions).

 

 

From: Clifford Snow  
Sent: Thursday, 5 April 2018 12:11
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a 
roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

 

I don't see any changeset comments in either of the two you referenced. I would 
suggest adding a changeset comment to get their attention.

 

You can also look on their github page to see what they are working on. 
https://github.com/Microsoft/Open-Maps/issues

 

Best,

Clifford

 

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:23 PM, mailto:osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote:

Well, the edits seem to be made in JOSM, and the speed seems to be too low to 
be a bot. So I do think they are made by hand.

 

But this (and tens of other changesets are all titled "Added turn restrictions 
source: Probe”. I don’t know what “Probe” is, but I assume it’s some automated 
tool somebody wrote to find these supposedly “missing” turn restrictions. And 
now somebody is following the output of that tool to enter the turn 
restrictions into OSM.

 

Which really doesn’t make much sense to me, because of some tool is able to 
determine that this isn’t a good place to turn, then router software can do the 
same and doesn’t need explicit turn restrictions in OSM.

 

Especially given that (in my understanding) turn restrictions are meant to 
directly reflect a legal turn restriction that is signed “on the ground” with 
either signs or road markings, which these are not. 

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

 

From: Jo mailto:winfi...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: Thursday, 5 April 2018 09:53
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a 
roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

 

That is absurd behaviour. Seems like somebody programmed a bot.

 

Polyglot

 

2018-04-05 1:49 GMT+02:00 Tod Fitch mailto:t...@fitchdesign.com> >:

Seems like tagging “noise” to me. I’d expect a router to use the roundabout 
itself because exiting, making a U turn and then re-entering the roundabout 
will be longer and thus slower. Since the no U turn relations are there to make 
routing work and a reasonable router won’t need them, I’d say they are “noise”. 
If I were to go in to fix something on that intersection, I’d probably remove 
the no U turn restriction(s). But I don’t think I’d go out of my way to find 
them.

 

Cheers!

 

On Apr 4, 2018, at 4:36 PM, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
  wrote:

 

I’ve noticed that someone from the Microsoft Open Map team is very busy adding 
turn restrictions all over the place (  
 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/shawat94/ ).

 

In my local neighbourhood, I noticed that he added no_u_turn restrictions to 
all the nodes where a road into in/out of a roundabout is splitting (because of 
physical separation). Which basically amounts to 4 no_u_turn restrictions for 
every single roundabout.

 

e.g. here:

  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57747093

  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57674063

 

There is no actual no_u_turn sign in any of these locations, it’s just (mostly) 
physically a bad idea to attempt a u-turn here.

 

Just a few weeks ago I discussed exactly this in #osm and the conclusion was 
that it was neither necessary nor desirable to do this.

 

I made a comment about that to the first of the two changesets linked above, 
but haven’t gotten a reply.

 

So, what is the general opinion about this here? Should these turn restrictions 
be created or not?

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

___
Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org  
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org  
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging





 

-- 

@osm_seattle

osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us  

OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Tagging turn restriction defaults

[Paul Johnson]

What would be the best way to handle setting unusual defaults on a regional
basis?  For example, all of the City of Tulsa and State of Oregon prohibit
U-turns at traffic lights.  How would one tag for this, and the inverse,
tagging where such a turn is allowed by a sign?

Most complicated example I can think of is one intersection I remember is
at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4597658691 and it's immediately
adjacent companion for the other carriageway just south.  U-turns are
banned in Oregon at traffic lights, but facing Canyon Road eastbound and
westbound is a sign that says "U Turn OK, CARS ONLY".  Northbound and
southbound traffic cannot U-turn at the light.  So there would need to be
an exception for motorcars coming from the east or west to allow a U-turn
and a statewide regional default to deny U-turns at lights for all modes.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging turn restriction defaults

[osm.tagging]

I was going to make a post about exactly this shortly…

 

In all of Queensland, u-turns at signal controlled intersections are prohibited 
by default, except if explicitly permitted with a “u-turn permitted” sign.

 

This raises two issues:

 

a.  How to specify that regional legislation 
b.  How to map u-turn permitted signs

 

I would think that a) could be solved by a similar approach as used here: 
https://github.com/osmlab/osm-planning/issues/5

 

That is, use the same structure as is used for ELI and OCI and put that into a 
git repository. The exact format of how to specify different local rules would 
still need to be worked out.

 

For b) I would propose that we look into adopting something like a 
type=permission relation, following a similar schema as type=restriction 
relations.

 

Looking in overpass: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/xBb

 

There are currently only 8 type=permission relations, which seem to have been 
created by a single user in a single small area. They are already following the 
general schema of restriction relations (from, via, to members, and a 
permission=* key that describes what in particular is permitted).

 

The 8 already existing ones are all permission=on_red_right_turn which means 
that it is allowed to turn right, even if the traffic signal is red (on the 
ground represented by a fixed green arrow sign beside the red light of the 
traffic signal: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%BCnpfeil ).

 

This schema could be easily extended to define permission=u_turn_permitted  
relations in queensland and other locations where u-turns are prohibited by 
default, but a u-turn permitted sign is present.

 

 

The reason why I was going to make a post about this anyway was that 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/shawat94/ is currently busy adding 100’s of 
no_u_turn restrictions (4 per intersection) to all signal controlled 
intersections he can find... And while that is currently the only way to make 
the router behave, it runs the risk that any “u-turn permitted signs” that are 
present might get overlooked when 100’s of these are added in bulk. And adding 
in the end 10’s of no_u_turn restrictions all over queensland seems a very 
poor plan in the long term.

 

 

From: Paul Johnson  
Sent: Thursday, 5 April 2018 13:16
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: [Tagging] Tagging turn restriction defaults

 

What would be the best way to handle setting unusual defaults on a regional 
basis?  For example, all of the City of Tulsa and State of Oregon prohibit 
U-turns at traffic lights.  How would one tag for this, and the inverse, 
tagging where such a turn is allowed by a sign?

 

Most complicated example I can think of is one intersection I remember is at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4597658691 and it's immediately adjacent 
companion for the other carriageway just south.  U-turns are banned in Oregon 
at traffic lights, but facing Canyon Road eastbound and westbound is a sign 
that says "U Turn OK, CARS ONLY".  Northbound and southbound traffic cannot 
U-turn at the light.  So there would need to be an exception for motorcars 
coming from the east or west to allow a U-turn and a statewide regional default 
to deny U-turns at lights for all modes.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

[osm.tagging]

Actually, it’s not just relatively harmless “noise”. Because such no_u_turn 
restrictions are indistinguishable from e.g. this one: 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8182004 (which I just created), that 
actually has a sign “on the ground”: 
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-27.2141567,153.0014115,3a,75y,100.42h,82.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-vnw60jwbq7XyR_-zZfreg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
 (excuse the streetview link, don’t have another photo of it right now, but I’m 
driving past it almost every day and am well aware of it).

 

 

 

From: Tod Fitch  
Sent: Thursday, 5 April 2018 09:50
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a 
roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation?

 

Seems like tagging “noise” to me. I’d expect a router to use the roundabout 
itself because exiting, making a U turn and then re-entering the roundabout 
will be longer and thus slower. Since the no U turn relations are there to make 
routing work and a reasonable router won’t need them, I’d say they are “noise”. 
If I were to go in to fix something on that intersection, I’d probably remove 
the no U turn restriction(s). But I don’t think I’d go out of my way to find 
them.

 

Cheers!

 

On Apr 4, 2018, at 4:36 PM, osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
  wrote:

 

I’ve noticed that someone from the Microsoft Open Map team is very busy adding 
turn restrictions all over the place (  
 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/shawat94/ ).

 

In my local neighbourhood, I noticed that he added no_u_turn restrictions to 
all the nodes where a road into in/out of a roundabout is splitting (because of 
physical separation). Which basically amounts to 4 no_u_turn restrictions for 
every single roundabout.

 

e.g. here:

  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57747093

  
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57674063

 

There is no actual no_u_turn sign in any of these locations, it’s just (mostly) 
physically a bad idea to attempt a u-turn here.

 

Just a few weeks ago I discussed exactly this in #osm and the conclusion was 
that it was neither necessary nor desirable to do this.

 

I made a comment about that to the first of the two changesets linked above, 
but haven’t gotten a reply.

 

So, what is the general opinion about this here? Should these turn restrictions 
be created or not?

 

Cheers,

Thorsten

___
Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging