You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Mapillary seems to have updated it's traffic-sign vector layer with the probable location of the object (traffic sign) rather than the location from where the image was taken. This is great except that without the knowledge as to which side the sign is facing, it is quite difficult to gauge which two roads the restriction is applying to. Also, many a times, this detection is not accurate. Thus, it would be of extreme help if we could see both the location of the object as well as the location from where the image containing that object was taken in the osm-navigation map itself. This would simplify and fasten up our process of adding turn restrictions manifold.
In both the above cases, we had to look around in iD and JOSM to get the location of the same image containing the traffic sign to try and add it to OSM.
Ref #53 and #54
Mapillary seems to have updated it's
traffic-sign
vector layer with the probable location of the object (traffic sign) rather than the location from where the image was taken. This is great except that without the knowledge as to which side the sign is facing, it is quite difficult to gauge which two roads the restriction is applying to. Also, many a times, this detection is not accurate. Thus, it would be of extreme help if we could see both the location of the object as well as the location from where the image containing that object was taken in the osm-navigation map itself. This would simplify and fasten up our process of adding turn restrictions manifold.In both the above cases, we had to look around in iD and JOSM to get the location of the same image containing the traffic sign to try and add it to OSM.
cc @planemad @gyllen @maning @geohacker @srividyacb @abhisheksaikia
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: