Proposal talk:Junction

Is this proposal needed?

I'm not sure if you being tired of using some tags is enough reason to create a bunch of new ones. --Lulu-Ann 07:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe my wording was a little off. In other words, why do we have junction=roundabout instead of just roundabout=yes ?? The junction key is currently underused, and there is certainly a lot of room for improvement. Ivansanchez 10:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest these would be better applied to a relation - particularly for complicated cases which will involve many ways - to group parts of the same junction. That would allow you to identify that the road is not just part of a junction, but that it's part of a specific junction. I'm not convinced of the need to tag individual elements in a way other than the existing highway=* tags. Richard B 11:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

We should generelly catch junctions in relations (like <relation "type=junction">) and not as tags in ways/nodes. Even simple junctions are very complex to catch them accurately. --Cbm 10:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong agree here. Ivansanchez: I like the classification you're building for naming different types of junction, and I love the explanations and diagrams. This is good stuff. But for the complex junction types, we _really_ need to express the junction as a Relation. Just tagging a bunch of (hopefully) connected ways isn't sufficient; let's use the built-in semantic grouping objects. --achadwick 10:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not to say that sometimes - like for a junction whose primary interlinkage is a single Way such a roundabout - it mightn't be appropriate for a junction to be tags on a Way. But Relations are still more expressive that I think that all interchanges between fast roads - motorways, primary roads - ought to be done this way. It'll make software that voices out "At Spaghetti Junction, take the signs for the A36" somewhat simpler to write for one thing. I'm going to propose a merge between this and Relations/Proposed/Junctions --achadwick 10:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Big crossings?

What about a big crossing like this : http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=46.548512&lon=6.56287&zoom=18&layers=B000FTF. Actuality it's awful, than I think we should define a scare with the tags:

• highway = *
• junction = crossing

and that mean that in the area the cars can go from everywhere to everywhere, the interdictions can be added with the Relation:restriction.

-- Sarge 11:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Complex Junction relation structure

It is suggested on other discussion pages that the tag "grade_separated" should not be used because "we can't infer from this tag which road goes on top" -see here. It is suggested that a render should find a good location for the icon -see here. It is also suggested that it "is a pretty cheap solution to finally have a good rendering" -see here.unsigned comment

I also think it is nice to give a render a hint, if it wants to figure out a location by itself thats fine but at least the render programmers have a choice --Computerfreaked 22:48, 27 September 2010 (BST)

Some people see problems with the ref: tag. At a junction an exit might have 2 or more references -see here. unsigned comment

Possible usage of "junction tag" for hiking maps

I would like to propose an additional usage for the junction tag.

I personally would like to use OSM as a base for hiking information AND as much as possible for a place for storing POI's for hiking.

There is one possible type of POI for which I have not found a way yet to map them properly in OSM. This POIs I am interested in are the points where two or more hiking trails are crossing each other, or they cross with other ways such as roads (without a visible sign !)

To have this POI's in a GPS give the hiker very valuable information, because this points you can nearly always find easily on a hiking map, so this helps a lot for orientation.

This is specially important for people with the simplest (not map-capable) GPS devices.

So I would see a typical use case to use OSM in this scenario as following. A hiker does the following before going to an possibly unknown area:

• downloading somehow all POIs for the area from OSM to his GPS (nearly any hiking GPS device supports this)
• getting a map ( commercial or if the OSM information for the area is very good, maybe he just uses the OSM map)

With this information together (the POIs from OSM + the map), the orientation during the hike gets much easier.

Most of the POIs for hiking are easily mappable in OSM already now, except the "trail crossing points". For some of this there is a proposed feature "guidepost" or "information", but this applys onlöy for intersections with the physical existence of a sign. In most of the trail crossings there is no sign, but even like this they give valuable information. (Like: "Ahh, I cross a trail which goes north (an I should be more or less 'here') so I need to be here on my map" )

So I would propose a tag, such as

junction=intersection

This could be the minimum information.

A lot of times a person knowing the area could add information, which ways are crossing, so there should be a way of adding the names of the ways which are crossing (or references ??). (maybe with a relation ??)

It's important to underline, that this should be used only if there is no visible sign (then the "Guidepost" or "Information" feature should be used)

I very welcome any comments on this.

-- unsigned comment

Useful for evolution of hiking maps

This can be as well very useful for the evolution of the level of details of hiking maps. For an area where I went hiking a a lot, I already added to my GPS this crossing points as waypoints. Typically I named them with the names of the two ways which are crossing there, such as "00-723". I do not have yet any information on the tracks itself, so can not map them yet. But I could create the "junction" points already and the next time I (or somebody else) goes, I'll get more details, such as:

• is it a crossing with or without signs ? (so maybe I need to add the "guidepost" tag)
• the trails track itself

-- unsigned comment

Suggestions

Traffic lights, see also Talk:Proposed_features/Set_of_Traffic_Signals#Relation_instead I'm thinking a relation type=junction, junction=set_of_traffic_signals. Add every traffic signal node to the relation with role traffic_signals and add all the ways belonging to this junction also to the relation (kind of what Welshie suggests) --Computerfreaked 15:48, 22 September 2010 (BST)

Are you talking about Traffic signal *poles* ? This is relevant for the blind. Lulu-Ann

No, but this is a good idea! Poles could be created as a node, and then added into the junction relation because they are also part of the junction --Computerfreaked 19:19, 26 September 2010 (BST)

I would certainly like to see more standardization of junctions or intersections. I am a game developer trying to use this data, and I can't even determine the locations of basic intersections. Having a tag that I can pull to indicate where intersections are (or what nodes are used), as well as the names of roads involved, and the type of intersection would be extremely useful. I was very impressed when I saw the notation of Roundabouts, and extremely disappointed when I saw there was no notation for a simple intersection. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. unsigned comment

Page maintenance

I have attempted to merge the Relations/Proposed/Junctions page with this page. I hope I've done it correctly if not please let me know --Computerfreaked 2010.

Rackets are Hook Turns?

The junction=racket tag seems a bit like Melbourne's hook turns. They seem to be more lane-oriented than the example of rackets in the proposed Junction article. But would they fit?

Hmz complicated. As far as I can see based on the description for the racket the idea is the same, but the purpose is different. The racket is used for traffic turning across the road to slow down and not hinder traffic behind you, whereas the hook turn is used to avoid driving on lanes wich you are not allowed to drive on (and as a positive side effect also not to hinder traffic behind you). I also agree on the fact that hook turns are more lane-oriented. Whether they would fit or not? I dont't think so because on a junction a racket would have a separate way wich would be tagged as junction=racket. A hookturn would be a lane on a junction (in real life) but will not be drawn as a separate lane in OSM. Correct me if i'm wrong ;) --Computerfreaked 14:39, 26 October 2010 (BST)

Use Relation:system?

Would the use of Relation:system help out here, especially for highway=traffic_signals? --Panther37 17:32, 25 April 2012 (BST)

Use role to describe members

I suggest to use the member roles to describe the members, for example "main" for the main roads and "link" for the link members. Cquest 06:20, 8 September 2012 (BST)

I have used this proposal to tag up a complex UK motorway junction as a relation ('Spaghetti Junction' on the M6 in Birmingham, UK). Check it out here. Any thoughts? PeterIto 11:43, 10 September 2012 (BST)