Talk:Throughabout

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Dear xxzme,

> not feature: there no need to create feature page for each word in specific language

For sure we don’t need a wiki page for each word in each language. But this is an english wiki page and the word is also english.

But I agree that the term “feature” is maybe not the best one. So the removal of the “feature” template is okay for me. But if you remove the template, please take a look at the wiki page as a hole: Your changes did produce a long text, where some parts of the text of the template are simply beside the other content – that’s not really fine for reading. If you remove the template, please take care the the resulting wiki page is well organized.

> not used in most countries/languages around the world

That’s not a valid argument against supporting something in OSM. At least in Spain and in Ivory Coast, this is quite common. (I lived in both of them for several years.) And I think there are mappers who are interested in a tagging guide for this.

> Wikipedia well known as bad source for OSM classification

1) Wikipedia was not the source of the content of this page. The page is a tagging guide, and Wikipedia does not talk about tagging.

2) Even the general description of a throughabout differs from the Wikipedia description.

3) There is a link to Wikipedia for further reading. I think that this link is useful. However, when you want to remove him – do it. But that’s not a reason to delete the page completly.

> It has been proposed that this page or section be merged with Junctions#Throughabout.

The page “Junctions” hasn’t any section named “Throughabout”. So it cannot be merged with it. Such a section could be created, but the page “Junctions” is currently not well-organized. It has even information about barrier=gates, which clearly isn’t a junction. Nevertheless, I doubt that it is a good idea to put every information about every junction type on one single page: If this page would be complete, it would be very large and not very easy to read.

Sommerluk (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Basically you duplicate content from Highways, Conditional restrictions, Relation:restriction just because somebody in Spain use specific word for this.
In many places around the world people informal names (they are not defined in laws) to Interchange_(road). They are insignificant and meaningless.
"double clover", "triple clover" - just FYI this tagging was abandoned multiple times in OSM.
Consider extending "usage" section (at Relation:restriction) instead of duplicating content for 40 time at wiki. Thank you.
Is there law(traffic law) in Spain about "hamburger" interchange?
Please define "hamburger interchange" in way it will be easily verifiable. Xxzme (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

> Basically you duplicate content from Highways

No, I don’t duplicate it. It’s a description of how to use them for a specific type of road junction.

> Conditional restrictions

I’m not sure what you mean here. But at this wiki page, Conditional restrictions are not even mentioned.

> just because somebody in Spain use specific word for this.

“Throughabout” is not a spanish word, it’s an english word ;-)

> Consider extending "usage" section (at Relation:restriction) instead of duplicating content for 40 time at wiki. Thank you.

Could you give me a list of the 40 wiki pages that I have created to duplicating the content of “Restriction”?

> Please define "hamburger interchange" in way it will be easily verifiable

You have such a description yet on the wiki page.

Sommerluk (talk) 20:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Now you have deleted the feature template simply – and also deleted its content. That’s not good. The content should be integrated in the article. I’ve now done this work. But normally that would have been your work because you want to remove the feature template. It’s quite bad style to simply destroy or delete the existing content – even if you don’t like throughabouts.

Sommerluk (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)