On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:06 PM, <osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> wrote:
> I tought it was obvious, but let me spell it out: such restrictions > represent a default which we should be recorded somewhere (not necessary > inside OSM) once and observed by data consumers, not by creating > potentially 100000’s of relations to again and again encode the default > behaviour. > Why not have a schema, in the data, for encoding this? Maybe a relation with the outermost administrative area to which it applies... > This is exactly the problem that exists in Brazil, where u-turns back onto > the same way at intersections are generally prohibited without any explicit > sign allowing them, so some mappers add 4 no_u_turn at every single > intersection node. > > > > Please refer to: https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2527 > > > > In fact, it is also reapet, IN BOLD, on the main relation:restriction > page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction > > > > · *Don't map *turn restrictions that are *the default* for a > given jurisdiction *and* are *not signed*. It is much better to ensure > that routing engines embody the regional rule rather than mapping every > occurrence as a turn restriction. This applies particularly to unsigned > U-turns in Brazil, where using turn restrictions will require hundreds or > thousands of restrictions and micro-segmentation of all roads which in turn > make editing data hard. > Again, this falls back on the whole "quoting the wiki as gospel" part that I initially beefed about.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
