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
SC is sometimes asking for kerb height for crossing nodes that already have nodes tagged barrier=kerb and kerb=* describing the kerb heights at that crossing. As an example, the 3 nodes where the paths (steps) cross the road on this way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/157690082 already have separately mapped kerb nodes with kerb heights, but SC is asking for kerb height at the node in between the kerb nodes that are shared between the crossing oath and the road. This leads to duplicates, for example at the middle crossing where I answered the quest.
I think SC should not ask the kerb height quest for such nodes, but should filer them out.
I think this is related to #4939 and should probably be considered in connecting with that issue (a solution to that issue will probably solve this one too).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
First of all, it is not considered a mistake to specify the kerbs both on the intersection and on the individual kerb nodes. This is why I removed the bug label.
SC is sometimes asking for kerb height for crossing nodes that already have nodes tagged
barrier=kerb
andkerb=*
describing the kerb heights at that crossing. As an example, the 3 nodes where the paths (steps) cross the road on this way https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/157690082 already have separately mapped kerb nodes with kerb heights, but SC is asking for kerb height at the node in between the kerb nodes that are shared between the crossing oath and the road. This leads to duplicates, for example at the middle crossing where I answered the quest.I think SC should not ask the kerb height quest for such nodes, but should filer them out.
I think this is related to #4939 and should probably be considered in connecting with that issue (a solution to that issue will probably solve this one too).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: