(Sharks with laser beams attached to their heads!)
I think that applied only to dual carriageways with physical separation only.
I am starting this topic because Map-Finder is not respecting the general mapping practice of not splitting a carriageway where there is no physical separation, and only a crosshatched area in the middle. I did not make up the rule: it was the OSM community’s choice over time. This is on top of my concerns about redundant U-turns and tagging exits from roundabouts as a link, which no other country does.
I am very busy with other projects so I cannot keep fixing junctions that do not need to be split because there is no physical separation. I feel there needs to be enforcement of this policy, because of driver safety, and also because of the risk of navigators wrongly disallowing legal left turns into small roads and driveways on such layouts.
Roads only need to be split if there is at least a kerb. Markings only are not enough.
I know that you love to be hunting me, see here ,
a highway primary that is seperated from main way WITHOUT physical separation but only paint.
1st image on Id Editor, 2nd image with Google, better resolution.
But instead of you fixing it, you prefer to be after me.
I also send you a pm, if there would be a fund from OpenStreetMap foundation so that to fix issues on A3 motorway, but you preferred to be silent.
Anyway, I spent too much time & money, to collect data while driving, making gpx files, so I am bored to keep on doing it and have iika-chan! to insult me.
Find an other guy to insult.
I don’t know what the consensus may have been in the past
but If I am allowed to have a say,
I am in favor of do splitting a carriageway where there is a crosshatched area in the middle, physical separation or not.
In terms of ‘driver safety’, I can’t find any concerns (on the contrary)
and neither do I see any ‘risk of navigators wrongly disallowing legal left turns into small roads and driveways on such layouts’ (irrelevant).
Also if it matters anyhow, this I believe is the standard broadly used in mapping and as it is representing accurately the map, it is within the purpose of OSM and should be implemented as such.
But hey, it is just me and my opinion.
A crosshatched area is not distant to the sense of a physical separation
as long as it does alter the physical dimensions of the trajectory and the landscape .
I agree with the others. LeonCR described very well why this way of mapping should remain, as discussed in this thread. If this standard changes in the future that’s ok, but in the context of this thread, mapping with the crosshatched area in mind should remain as is, wherever possible.