Thanks for the information, osmviborg and parsd51! I will proceed with removing the gate as well as the access=no tags on the links.

Hi parsd51, does the gate node/8613155760 still exist? I can’t confirm it in this Mapillary image (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=2776876242436801&lat=55.7292466&lng=12.4437756&z=17&focus=photo&x=0.6618972050765749&y=0.5354401870717944&zoom=0). Since the links to the hospital appear to be open per Mapillary (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=542974753729984), I wanted to remove the access=no tags which block routing.

Thanks!
Bulls_eye

Hello Chelovechichek,

I noticed ref tag changes related to the ref=Р-51 tags through the town of Павлоград. The tags were moved from Полтавська вулиця (way/129433840) to Успенська вулиця (way/124857752). However, the ref=Р-51 tag still remains on a portion of Полтавська вулиця (way/755281694), and the route relation (relation/1747665) was not edited to match. This results in two Р-51 routes traveling through Павлоград. Something similar appears to have occurred with the addition of ref=Т-04-22, as it was added to (way/129433840), but not the corresponding relation (relation/3178447), or the ways in between. I am curious what resource you used to make this change, as the Mapillary images I see at these junctions do not confirm the new ref location. If you are interested in route relations, here is the wiki page about them (osm.wiki/Relation:route).

Thanks!
Bulls_eye

Correction: source was Esri World Imagery

Hello Hjart,

I used OSM global policy for roundabouts to justify reclassifying the roundabout junctions to trunks (junction=roundabout#Selection_of_the_right_highway_tag) “If there are several roads of different importance connecting to the roundabout, you should usually use the one with the greatest importance…”). I understand bicycles should be allowed along the roundabout, and that a trunk would normally block that. However, allowing bicycles can be done using a bicycle or similar tag.

I appreciate the Mapillary image that you linked, however it only covers one of the junctions. The other junctions unfortunately lack sufficient Mapillary imagery to make similar determinations.

I also wanted to ask if you think the trunk_links would be better suited as trunks. Per global policy, “Links are also used in roundabout designs that physically separate a specific turn from the main roundabout.” (osm.wiki/Highway_link) What do you think about removing the link tags?

Thanks again for your help around here. If you have any more helpful tips for mapping to accommodate bike routing in Denmark, please let me know!

- Bulls_eye

Hello Hjart,

I agree with you that it is not necessarily wrong to classify this intersection as a secondary_link; but I figured that since this is a rather simple intersection, a link tag seemed unnecessary, so I classified it to match the intersecting unclassified way. My understanding is that link tags are typically reserved for “slip roads/ramps and 'channelised' (physically separated by an obstruction or painted island) at-grade turning lanes connecting the through carriageways/through lanes of highways to other roadways of all types.” (osm.wiki/Highway_link).

Let me know if you feel differently about it, but I hope my reasoning makes sense!

- Bulls_eye

gotcha, thanks

Hello osmviborg, thanks for the message. I looked here and saw a car turning left: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=56.45570894&lng=9.40409377&z=17&pKey=ruGj9P30AVDelzSBRxXFtA&focus=photo and I didn’t see any restriction signs. I understand the Mapillary images are a few years old, are there new turn restrictions there? Thank you.

Hello mosstreet,

I noticed you provided ways with a new ref tag, 87Р-001, at way/444874643 and along with ways further south, beginning at way/445623993. However, the ways in between them still have ref Р25. I was wondering if the ways between the two I linked should receive the new ref tag as well. Do you have any more information about the extent of route 87Р-001?

Thanks!
Bulls_eye

Привет mosstreet,
Я заметил, что вы обозначили дороги с новым ref тегом, 87Р-001, way/444874643 а также и дорога дальше на юг, начиная с way/445623993. Тем не менее, между этими дорогами еще пару дорог с ref тегом Р25. Мне интересно если дороги по середине должны получить новый ref тег. У вас есть еще информация о протяженности всей трассы 87Р-001?

Спасибо!
Bulls_eye

Moving this conversation to the Discord server. Thanks!

Hi Kovoschiz,

I now understand why you made only sections of this expressway entrance/exit trunk_link. I have not seen this sort of editing policy in other countries. It is more common practice to extend the motorway_link to the most logical ending or starting point. Would it be possible to follow a similar policy in Hong Kong?

More Mapillary would be great!

Hello all,

I made these changes based on ground level imagery, global & local policy, and some by my own judgment.

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=55.80949849997225&lng=12.105078000000049&z=17&pKey=uCw5bWhHPD9PCvHiVBFobQ&focus=photo&x=0.6888763339261883&y=0.6147275846509603&zoom=1.446576490469858&dateFrom=2019-08-01

In this image, I can see that the sign leads to 53/211, which has been classified as primary, so I reclassified the primary link to a primary way, based on the fact that it has this ref tag and links usually do not have ref tags.

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=55.80951780000001&lng=12.104588400000011&z=17&pKey=8pA94TsJIbh-NqArYdkmMw&focus=photo&dateFrom=2019-08-01&x=0.5422528413829993&y=0.6428354479075303&zoom=0

In this image, I can see the sign leads to the 53 expressway, so I reclassified the ways west of the roundabout to trunks per this page osm.wiki/Highway:International_equivalence

As I previously noted, highway links do not typically have ref tags, so I removed link tags from ways with ref tags, and did my best to make them as continuous as I could with the existing route classifications.

The tertiary ways were isolated, and this is not a best modeling practice. I reclassified those to be continuous with their route.

Without ground level imagery of the west-most roundabout, and without more recent aerial imagery, I cannot confirm whether my scheme is completely correct, but I did it to the best of my knowledge of local and global policy after using the Mapillary images as clues.

Please let me know if you would like to discuss any of these changes further. If you can point me to other resources that would help me with this junction, or Danish roads in general, I’d be happy to hear your feedback.

Thanks!

Thanks for the feedback.

Hi Hjart,

I am unsure if it’s indefinite. I noticed construction from 2019-05-11. I tried to locate resources for road construction in Denmark, but unfortunately, the reports I found do not list information on the status of construction on Hækkerupsvej. Do you happen to know any good resources for construction projects in Denmark?

Thanks

Sounds good, thank you for double checking. I realized there is a missing connection between Hvidkærvej and Dyrupgårds Allé. I’ll add that now. Mapillary seems to confirm turns are allowed in most directions but do you happen to have local knowledge to confirm?

Hello osmviborg,

According to recent Mapillary (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=YW0vO8PjMC5e5QituN7rPA&lat=55.357345026666664&lng=10.340186616666667&z=17) and DigitalGlobe imagery from July 10th, the road appears to be open? Do you happen to know when it will open? Thanks!

Hey Hjart, yeah I checked history but the mapillary is more recent so I added oneway. Because mapillary also is not recent, I’ll defer to your local knowledge. Thanks for following up.

Hi literan,

I was following the RU highway policy on this where: (translated) "off ramps at intersections have the same importance as the road network as the highway=secondary. By default, highway=secondary_link”.

Is there another policy that you are looking at?

Thanks!

Hello Hjart,

I removed the oneway tag based on the presence of the yield sign visible in [Mapillary] (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=56.344307391&lng=10.45704664660002&z=17&pKey=L5Cqsmb2H6yYhUVcDOWg-w&focus=photo&x=0.39926554068498166&y=0.4854974861217911&zoom=0). Since the sign is oriented to the north, it seemed logical to me that traffic was expected to come from the north (opposite the oneway). Unfortunately, the Mapillary coverage in this area is a bit sparse, but I did check the surrounding area for explicit oneway or do not enter signs and could not find any. Do you have any tips that could help in these situations?

Thanks,

Bulls_eye