Say two ways cross at an intersection, but it isn't legal to turn from one into the other. (E.g. a footway crossing a cycleway, or a separated bus lane crossing another road.) Is it okay to map such intersections as crossing ways which don't share a node, or is it better practice to add the crossing node, and then add turn restrictions denoting that no turns can be made? The former seems much simpler, but unfortunately triggers false positives from quality assurance tools.

asked 10 Jul '15, 14:46

Paul_012's gravatar image

accept rate: 33%

They should share a common node where they share a physical patch of asphalt (i.e. there's no bridges or tunnels).

For restricted use paths and roads, many turn restrictions are unnecessary. So in your example, if you have a path with bicycle=no, and a cycleway with foot=no, there's no need to add turn restrictions since the pedestrians aren't allowed on the cycleway and the bikes aren't allowed on the path.

permanent link

answered 10 Jul '15, 16:10

Andy%20Allan's gravatar image

Andy Allan
accept rate: 28%

Skipping the common node at the intersection will also prevent pedestrians from going from one road to the other. Moreover, various turn restrictions don't apply to emergency vehicles. Therefore you should always add a turn restriction instead of skipping the common node.

permanent link

answered 13 Jul '15, 10:36

scai's gravatar image

scai ♦
accept rate: 23%

Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here



Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text]( "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:


question asked: 10 Jul '15, 14:46

question was seen: 2,311 times

last updated: 13 Jul '15, 10:36

powered by OSQA