Changeset: 36263254
service road for delivery etc.
Closed by MMN-o
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (9060 Debian sv) |
---|---|
source | survey |
Discussion
-
Comment from GerdP
Hi there!
I wonder why you map the turning_circle twice. I think the way
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/388696465
is obsolete and the tag should not be used on ways. What did you try to map? -
Comment from MMN-o
Hello GerdP, I meant to map the turning circle (it is the oval shaped area, clearly separated from the surrounding paths).
The reason I mapped the turning circle twice was purely for rendering, which I thought was a good idea at the time but am not at all convinced of anymore (rendering should adapt to mapping rather than the other way around of course!).
I'm curious what you mean with the tag being obsolete? Perhaps you meant redundant? Then perhaps, but I'd rather remove the single node version.
I know the wiki says not to use highway=turning_circle on an area, but in this case I would argue it is appropriate.
-
Comment from MMN-o
Clearly separated on-site (or on bird's-view imagery), I mean.
-
Comment from GerdP
Thanks for getting back on this. I wrote the way is obsolete, obsolete means can be removed. The node with highway=turning_circle implies that there is an area like this. Why do you think that this turning_circle is special?
-
Comment from MMN-o
Mostly it is that the turning circle actually has that specific area. And I would preferrably remove the single-node one.
The fences along the side go along the edge of the turning circle and the footways/paths visibly end on the edge of the turning circle. It works sort of like a load/unload area for the nearby building "Klossen" etc.
Am I crazy for thinking the one with area=yes should be the one mapped? :)
Having the single node removed would also mean removing the ways that go inside the area of course, since the turning circle is available for anyone going by foot or coming with a delivery vehicle etc.
-
Comment from GerdP
If the area is for walking I suggest to use highway=footway(or maybe pedestrian) + area=yes. I would not remove the other ways then.
Ways (11)
- 388698146, v1
- 388698147, v1
- 388698148, v1
- 388698149, v1
- 363565865, v4
- 363565866, v3
- 363565867, v3
- 388696781, v2
- 388696465, v2
- 107125169, v3
388696460, v2
Nodes (9)
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 |