Hello mikkolukas, Bulls_eye is currently not on our team so I will be responding on her behalf. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. This edit occurred before a conversation you had with a fellow team member about this topic in April 2020 (osm.org/changeset/76508518). As a team, we are now aware of this issue and will refrain from making these edits in the future. Thank you for your feedback and have a great day!

Hello, Henosb is not currently on our team, so I can respond on his behalf. I agree, the `access=private` tag does not need to extend before the gate, as you suggested.

Hey muchichka_s, thanks for bringing this to our attention. While GeoTheExplorer is no longer on our team, we will be sure to remind our current team on the use of Cyrillic characters. Furthermore, it appears as though GeoTheExplorer also mistook the Cyrillic “С" in Nikolaїch’s changeset for “О”. I will change this to represent the previous ref tag also seen in the current ref relation.

Thanks

Hello Владимир К!!
suchAnight is not currently on our team, so I will reply on his behalf. It looks like while editing around this area, suchAnight must have accidentally moved the `landuse=industrial` polygon (osm.org/way/97165667), which resulted in the gate being moved. For the gate at osm.org/node/8917287324, suchAnight cited “Maxar Standard Imagery”, and must have mistaken it for a gate. Thank you for mentioning this is actually a pipeline and for the corrections on this edit!

Привет RusFox,

Я обращаюсь к вам по поводу удаления trunk_links в этом наборе изменений. У нас был подобный разговор в прошлом (osm.org/changeset/86785312). Я заметил, что вы внесли аналогичные изменения в другой набор изменений (osm.org/changeset/110022960), поэтому мне интересно, есть ли новая локальная или глобальная политика в отношении полос скольжения, о которых мне следует знать? Похоже, что никаких существенных изменений в вики-странице (osm.wiki/Highway_link) не произошло, и я все еще вижу нарисованные барьеры на этих перекрестках на нескольких аэрофотоснимках, а также на Mapillary из год назад (https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=468138951077547), что показывает, что краска в хорошем состоянии.

Спасибо,
GeoidDude

I believe I was unclear in my last response. I don’t suspect `junction:ref=*` tags have sufficient support to be the sole indicator of a motorway exit number, and should still be used in conjunction with motorway_junction nodes.

As I understand it, the `junction:ref=*` tags are used where it is unclear which exit number is attributed to one of multiple motorway_links stemming from the same node. A good example exists here (22.2897197, 114.142394) — there are two motorway_links, each with their own exit numbers (https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FziJa7517tRDXWm5Ia9sSv). The `junction:ref=*` tag matches each motorway_link to one of the `ref=*` tags specified on the motorway_junction node (osm.org/node/356559137).

I see how the `junction:ref=*` tags could eventually be the only necessary tag for recording exit numbers, but currently the wiki page specifies this tag should be used on ways “directly behind the motorway_junction node” (osm.wiki/Key:junction:ref).

I hope this helps clarify the tagging scheme!

I do not believe there is sufficient support for the `*:ref=*` tags. My reasoning for thinking this is because the `junction:ref=*` tag is only "in use" according to its wiki page (osm.wiki/Key:junction:ref), and the `motorway_junction:ref=*` tag has 71 total uses worldwide (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/motorway_junction%3Aref). Because of this, it seems safest to continue using the `highway=motorway_junction` + `ref=12C`, since this is very well-established world-wide (https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/highway=motorway_junction).

Hello Kovoschiz,

I did not notice that existing motorway_junction node. The wiki policy I reference is available here: osm.wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway_junction. This page specifies these tags are used “to identify a point…where it is possible to exit a highway” and also, “This node should be positioned as the last point before the splay at which it is still possible to make a smooth turn.” After reading this description, believe the tags at osm.org/node/2194466211 are inappropriate, because it does not fit the descriptions above.

As for the solid lines, I see some routing engines are not recognizing the only_straight_on restriction (osm.org/relation/11672405). I wonder if the painted channelization may justify creating another parallel motorway segment to remove any ambiguity.

Regards,

GeoidDude

Здравствуйте, спасибо за сообщение. Tri_Hugger сейчас не работает в нашей команде, поэтому я отвечу от его имени. Я не совсем понимаю, что вы имеете в виду. Вы имеете в виду ограничения поворота который Tri_Hugger добавил?

Hello muchicha_s, thanks for pointing this out. GazEddyr is not currently with our team, but I believe this editor was not aware of the entrances which are often included in Ukrainian ref routes, and misinterpreted this sign when making that edit (https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FqJAqC8Q9ohSe8BU6tAbzQ). Our team knows to reference the wiki page related to Ukrainian state highways (osm.wiki/Uk:Автомобільні_шляхи_України_державного_значення), and that point has been reiterated. Please let us know if you discover any other issues, and thanks again!

Hello, Tri_Hugger is not currently with our team so I am responding on his behalf. It appears the inclusion of “Феневичі” was inappropriate, but the entire `destination` tag was removed instead. Thanks for pointing this out, I have added it back.

Hi muchichka_s, Burricane is not currently on our editing team, so I’ll pick up communication on this changeset. Another detail we often reference when considering the `junction=roundabout` tag, is which vehicles have the right of way. According to the OSM policy page (osm.wiki/Tag:junction%3Droundabout) this is the defining characteristic of a roundabout, that vehicles within the junction have the right of way. I hope this helps!

Hello, when I made this edit in January of 2019, I was likely referencing the global OSM policy (osm.wiki/Key:highway#Roads). Since then, I know you have had a conversation with my colleague, and understand `highway=secondary` is more appropriate for G-routes (osm.org/changeset/65458670). Thanks!

Я отредактировал местоположение, включив в него «turn:lanes» и highway_links, как мы обсуждали, а также несколько деталей, касающихся существующих отношений. Я не знаю где есть ещё более новые наземные снимки, которые доступны здесь, поэтому мои правки основаны на снимках Bing aerial imagery. Если есть какие-либо устарелые данные, не стесняйтесь их обновить.
Вот ссылка на пакет правок в OSM: (osm.org/changeset/87943392)

Спасибо за объяснение. Меня беспокоит то, что определение того, что является “слишком коротким”, является личным предпочтением, которое трудно для всех последовательно решить. OSM Wiki советуют нам “Не рисуйте для красоты (рендерера) " или других навигационных систем.
Русская Wiki: osm.wiki/RU:Хороший_стиль#.D0.9D.D0.B5_.D1.80.D0.B8.D1.81.D1.83.D0.B9.D1.82.D0.B5_.D0.B4.D0.BB.D1.8F_.D0.BA.D1.80.D0.B0.D1.81.D0.BE.D1.82.D1.8B_.28.D1.80.D0.B5.D0.BD.D0.B4.D0.B5.D1.80.D0.B5.D1.80.D0.B0.29
Английская Wiki: osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_for_the_renderer
Я согласен, что теги "turn: lanes “ являются хорошим дополнением, и я думаю, что лучшим решением было бы включить как теги ”turn:lanes", так и “trunk_links”. Если вы хотите, я могу отредактировать эти места, чтобы показать, что я предлагаю.

Спасибо,
GeoidDude

Привет RusFox,
Я заметил что вы удалили внешние полосы для съезда на этом перекрестке, где на спутниковых снимках видны покрашенные барьеры. Смотря на страницу с правилами о съездах, osm.wiki/Highway_link я понял, что полосы скольжения следует моделировать как отдельные пути, если они разделены физическими или окрашенными барьерами. Похоже что вы также сделали подобные изменения для пересечений в этих пакетах правок: osm.org/changeset/86786154, osm.org/changeset/86785543. Есть ли другая страница с правилами касающаяся моделирования внешних полос съезда, о которой мне следует знать?
Спасибо
GeoidDude

Hello Carlos Brys, there appears to be some conflict regarding this highway on the Argentina Highway Classification Policy page. The rural highway guidelines (osm.wiki/Argentina/Highways#Rural_ways) suggest this should be a secondary, as the village of Alba Posse does not have 10,000 inhabitants. However, there is a specific note which states this section of RP8 should be a primary highway, because of the border crossing (osm.wiki/Argentina/Highways#Misiones).

Let me know what you think,
GeoidDude

Hello ftrebien, thanks for the question. Admasawi is not currently with our team, so I am responding on his behalf. The decision to downgrade this portion of the RP8 was based on the policy stating rural, primary highways in Argentina must connect cities of 10,000 - 45,000 inhabitants (osm.wiki/Argentina/Highways#Rural_ways). These general guidelines do not mention any details regarding border crossings, so we did not see the statement regarding this specific highway in Misiones at (osm.wiki/Argentina/Highways#Misiones). I will return the classification to primary, and we will note that policy for the future. Thanks again.

Regards,
GeoidDude

Без проблем!

Hello Kovoschiz, I think it would be justifiable to split the motorway into two parallel segments here. It would allow for the bus route relations to include the left-most way, since they must use that lane to reach the bus bay. Also, although “traffic_calming=island” can appear on ways, that seems more appropriate for bidirectional ways, where it would not complicate potential “turn:lanes” tags which might be added in the future.