Changeset: 100542700
Roundabout tidyup.
Closed by robw
Tags
changesets_count | 1507 |
---|---|
created_by | iD 2.19.6 |
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit |
imagery_used | Bing aerial imagery |
locale | en-GB |
Discussion
-
Comment from user_5589
Did it ever occur to you that the approaches to that roundabout were laid out like they were before this edit for a good reason? There are turning lanes with islands in between them and the main lines of the roads in question. That means certain movements are not allowed at the roundabout. Those movements were restricted by turning restrictions previously and the geometries of the flows were respected.
Now the layout looks like a mess with absurdly tight turns put in place because you wanted to "tidyup" the roundabout. Now turns can be made by routing software that were forbidden previously. Oh and the gritting route relation is now completely messed up at this roundabout.
Please revert this unhelpful and destructive edit.
-
Comment from robw
Sorry but as previously mapped there were multiple non-existant ways shown. As now mapped all the islands actually present on the ground are correct. Only turn restrictions which are signposted as "not allowed" should actually be mapped as otherwise it is just a matter of opinion what is or is not allowed. Apologies if i mapped up the gritting route relation - consider it an opportunity for you to fix it.
-
Comment from user_5589
They are signposted, at least on the A452 Binswood Street. What you need to properly consider and be aware of is what counts as "signposted".
The governing rules are the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/contents/made
If you look in the schedules to those regulations you will see that road markings count as exactly the same as upright signposts in law. Binswood Street has examples of diagram 1038 in the lanes leading on to the main roundabout. They very clearly indicate that one lane is ahead only and that one lane is right turn only. Diagram 1039 can be found a little further back on the carriageway from the roundabout at the point where the left-turn lane diverges. Again that is the same as an upright signpost in law.
Now they are advisory traffic signs, rather than compulsory traffic signs, but if you tried to turn left from Binswood Street into Rugby Road other than via the left-turn lane or by going a complete circuit around the roundabout then you would be guilty of driving without due care and attention and if you did so in a particularly reckless manner you could be guilty of dangerous driving.
Incidentally I see you've also done a multitude of other destructive and unhelpful edits to a multiplicity of other junctions in the Leamington and Warwick area recently. Given your lack of proper comprehension of the wrong you have done and the damage you have done to junction mapping in the area I intend to get in touch with the appropriate people to get your edits almost all reverted.
Not sure whether this is Data Working Group level of concern, but the amount of damage is considerable.
-
Comment from ndrw6
I came here after reading user_5589's post in Talk-GB and I have only verified the changes in osmcha using Bing imagery.
I see robw has made subsequent fixes in changesets #101074201, #101074494 and #101074890. User_5589, are they addressing the issues you have raised?
I can also see this changeset has indeed mainly removed non-existent islands/ways, so calling it destructive is not warranted. For multiple lanes not separated by traffic islands the consensus is to use tagging, not to create multiple highways.
Overall, this roundabout is mapped very well indeed, much better than most I've seen. Thank you both.
-
Comment from robw
Thanks ndrw6. I have indeed added some turn implicit turn restrictions would should address #5589's comments. If s/he had been a little more civil in the opening remarks then I would probably not have responded in such a terse manner. I have also reviewed the other local interchanges which I have recently similary modified to remove non-existant ways and have now add in implicit restrictions where appropriate.
-
Comment from user_5589
So you think I was uncivil initially. That's unfortunate for you.
I attacked what you had done. I questioned your actions. I did not question you as a person.
Let's look at my points in turn. Were you edits destructive? Well they destroyed some of the work I had put into mapping those junctions, reducing the accuracy of the mapping at those junctions, so yes I'd definitely say that qualifies as destructive. Since they qualify as destructive, and that destruction was not creative destruction I would also say they qualify as unhelpful.
Another thing that is particularly bad about this particular edit is your claim to be removing "multiple non-existent ways". Now if you go by the database definition of a way as a line connecting a series of nodes then since you deleted half a dozen from the database then you did remove some ways. That said it is very much mistaken to call them "non-existent".
Consider what a way is when applied to the map rather than considered simply as a database item? A way is an abstraction used to represent reality: in this case the routes traffic uses along particular roads at a junction. All of the ways deleted in the edits represent real, distinct traffic flows. At this roundabout traffic flowing from the A452 Binswood Street to A445 Rugby Road uses the left turn filter lane. It does NOT go up the signed straight ahead or the signed right turn lanes and then turn left on the A445 Rugby Road. As I said in my post higher up the thread these turning restrictions are signposted by diagrams 1038 and 1039 from the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. Now Northumberland Road is more arguable as there aren't actually road markings there directing to a particular lane, but from the road layout it is very clear that to turn left from Northumberland Road into A452 Lillington Avenue involves using the short left turn filter lane. Again attempting to turn from Northumberland Road into Lillington Avenue via the other lanes would be considered driving without due care and attention at the very least unless a full circuit round the roundabout were done from the right turn lane.
Physically the flows of traffic on that roundabout cross. They enter or exit the roundabout at different points on its circumference. So if they enter or exit the roundabout at different points, and those different points are significantly away from each other on the circumference of the roundabout, then they should be mapped as separate points. If they are mapped as separate points then the ways representing the two traffic flows will cross away from the roundabout. If that is the case then they need turn restrictions in place to prevent improper routing. Hence the ways being split at their intersection to allow the turning restrictions to be in place.
No more ways were used than topologically and systematically demanded by the way the database works in order to represent the actual traffic flows at the junction in a geometric manner which is not too abrupt and harsh.
That is the guiding principle I use when mapping all roads and junctions. Everything is an approximation when mapping, and you will notice, for example, that the Princes Drive bridge outline is represented by nothing more than the four nodes representing the four corners of the bridge plus four more nodes where the ways for Princes Drive and the pavement which cross the bridge intersect it. The way only contains those eight nodes because four are required to represent the geometry of the bridge and four are required to handle the intersections with the ways crossing that bridge. However I judge that the junctions require more nodes to represent their geometries, and where traffic flows differ significantly in their geometries those should also be represented.
Turning to another example of this junction editing: the A452 Princes Drive and Park Drive junction where we have a good example of semantic incorrectness introduced by the editing. Now the according to the map the A452 goes through the junction as two one-way sections for the most part. However there is one section of the northbound A452 which suddenly turns two-way through the junction for some reason. That is for the movement from Princes Drive southbound into the recycling centre. However that movement does not take place on the A452 either factually or semantically. The southbound A452 runs on the other side of the junction and this movement occurs on a service road leading from Princes Drive southbound into the recycling centre. So why is it mapped as taking place on a fictitious second, parallel, southbound portion of the A452 now? Oh and another thing I just noticed as well about that editing: the stop line point for the traffic lights coming out of the recycling centre and the gates for that centre have been merged into a single node. The gates close beyond the stop line for the traffic lights. That's why the two nodes were separated previously. Only a little thing in this case, but emblematic of the style of editing employed at these junctions. Said style being reduction in correctness and detail of the mapping for no real reason.
I have no objection to edits improving the accuracy and fidelity of the map. I have a strenuous objection to edits degrading the accuracy and fidelity of the map, as these edits do.
-
Comment from robw
Wow. What a rant.
-
Comment from ndrw6
User_5589, I came here expecting vandalism or at least controversial changes. Instead, what I've seen was a well mapped roundabout adhering to OSM conventions and a previous version that was objectively incorrect, as it introduced ways and crossings where they don't physically exist.
I realise your intention was to map the layout of individual traffic lanes. That's a desirable outcome but, as of now, there is no satisfactory solution to it. You could try adding area:highway or lanes tags. Or even put forward a whole new proposal for broader discussion.
-
Comment from user_5589
"Wow. What a rant."
Wow. What a misuse of a word.
Check out the actual definition of rant and then compare it to what you've called a rant. Then consider actually having a correct usage of vocabulary to describe what I wrote.
It also might help your case if you substantively countered what I've said instead of summarily dismissing it out-of-hand. For example you haven't acknowledged the signposting of lane restrictions on the A452 which directly counters what you claimed.
-
Comment from robw
Yep. You are still ranting. I guess you don't have a day job as if you did and your spoke to co-workers like you do on here, then you soon would not. If you ask politely for an explanation of what I have done or indicate an error and ask me to fix it then I am far more likely to respond positively. As you have asked about "the signposting of lane restrictions on the A452", then sorry but I can't see any - and as you are very keen on mapping every single signpost you don't seem to be able to see any either.
-
Comment from robw
Ooh, but you have identified a problem with the signage at this roundabout - it is not actually signposted as a roundabout at all! I went past an hour or so ago and there are none of the required signs to indicate that it should be traversed in a specific direction, therefore actually mapping it as one-way is incorrect. Do you want to fix this or shall I?
-
Comment from user_5589
"I guess you don't have a day job as if you did and your spoke to co-workers like you do on here, then you soon would not."
Ah unwarranted assumptions galore! So nice to see that surfacing.
As for traffic signs on the A452 Binswood Street, note that I referred to traffic signs specifically in the vast majority of my post. I did they very deliberately because traffic sign has a distinct legal meaning. The restrictions are advisory, not mandatory, but they are very much there and very much indicated by traffic signs. Also try going round the junction in normal traffic whilst completely ignoring those restrictions in front of a police officer. You'd end up with a fixed penalty notice so quickly you wouldn't even have time to blink. Like I said driving without due care and attention.
As I have said previously those traffic signs are diagrams 1038 and 1039 from the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 and I have told you where they are on the road.
Just to be very, very, very clearly about this: diagram 1038 and diagram 1039 are road markings painted on the road surface. Road markings are just as much traffic signs as things stuck on top of an upright post.
As for, "Ooh, but you have identified a problem with the signage at this roundabout - it is not actually signposted as a roundabout at all!"
Let's see:
What's that big green thing on the left hand side of the road? Why it's traffic sign signposting this junction as a roundabout.
What's that big white thing on the left hand side of the road? Why it's traffic sign signposting this junction as a roundabout.
What's that big green thing on the left hand side of the road? Why it's traffic sign signposting this junction as a roundabout.
So that's three of the four arms of the junction with traffic signs on the approach clearly showing it as a roundabout. Northumberland Road doesn't have such signage, but it's a residential road with local, rather than long- or medium-distance traffic and so rather different priorities for the street furniture.
If you're referring to the Princes Drive junction then you should know as well as I if you're local to the area that used to be a roundabout, until the junction was modified a few years back.
Don't try and get hair-splittingly snarky with me. I can quite easily demolish such attempts, as I have just done with that silly comment over roundabout traffic signs.
-
Comment from robw
Oh you really are a giggle.
The signs you link to (why GSV not your own photos?) are all advance direction signs; the actual roundabout has no roundabout (i.e. keep left) signs. And at no point am I referring to the Princes Drive junction as this is not in this changset. And sorry if you think that is "hair-slippingly snarky" but you have totally failed to "demolish such attempts" - whatever it is that you are referring to. -
Comment from robw
And do you have a name? Or should I continue referring to you as #5589 - at least that makes a change from number 6.
-
Comment from user_5589
Tell you what, why don't you try not treating it as a roundabout next time you go through the junction? Say what time and date you're going to do it. I can make sure I'm there to record your actions on camera and then I'll pass it on to Warwickshire Police to see what they have to say about it.
I'm sure the lack of diagram 606 signs at the junction will mean that they would be very forgiving of you not going round the junction in a clockwise sense. I'm sure that they would not investigate you for committing a road traffic offence if you were to do that.
Care to take that course of action?
-
Comment from robw
Ha. The police have even less understanding of the signage regulations than you do. But as you keep being very keen in pointing out, just because something is not signposted doesn't mean is it is a safe (not: not illegal) manoeuver.
I regularly used to go around the Tesco "roundabout" the wrong way as that is similarly not singposted. -
Comment from woodpeck
The DWG has been alerted to this discussion, also in light of recent edits by robw commented just with "Sigh" (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/103294979). Our statement is as follows: user_5589 has been a little obsessive about the level of detail and his interpretation about what "signposted" means. A junction mapped with less detail is very much "good enough" for OSM. user_5589 has been somewhat condescending in his initial changeset comment. The response by robw ("consider it an opportunity for you to fix it") wasn't any better though it seems he has made amends later. Discussion about whether someone has a day job or not is totally inappropriate in OSM changeset comments. Folks, there's so much good you can both do for OSM instead of fighting about just how much detail a roundabout needs. Remember that by and large we're all on the same side! Just a few meters away from this roundabout there are hundreds of buildings without house numbers, and within 30km I can see whole villages without buildings. Don't obsess over details; OSM must remain manageable and understandable to newbies. Most of all, let's try to keep it a friendly place.
Ways (14)
- Binswood Street (111464535), v15
- 112900180, v14
- 112900181, v14
- Rugby Road (772803277), v7
- Lillington Avenue (772803278), v7
- Northumberland Road (859575958), v7
111464529, v18111464534, v15111464541, v17296622192, v8772803275, v7772803276, v5887684119, v2887684120, v2
Relations (7)
- Stagecoach 1 (1438024), v108
- 4076276, v56
- 10716330, v3
- 10716331, v3
- 10716332, v3
- 10716333, v2
- A445 (12015174), v9
Nodes (3)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |