user_5589 (2021-03-17 14:11:09+00:00): So you think I was uncivil initially. That's unfortunate for you.

I attacked what you had done. I questioned your actions. I did not question you as a person.

Let's look at my points in turn. Were you edits destructive? Well they destroyed some of the work I had put into mapping those junctions, reducing the accuracy of the mapping at those junctions, so yes I'd definitely say that qualifies as destructive. Since they qualify as destructive, and that destruction was not creative destruction I would also say they qualify as unhelpful.

Another thing that is particularly bad about this particular edit is your claim to be removing "multiple non-existent ways". Now if you go by the database definition of a way as a line connecting a series of nodes then since you deleted half a dozen from the database then you did remove some ways. That said it is very much mistaken to call them "non-existent".

Consider what a way is when applied to the map rather than considered simply as a database item? A way is an abstraction used to represent reality: in this case the routes traffic uses along particular roads at a junction. All of the ways deleted in the edits represent real, distinct traffic flows. At this roundabout traffic flowing from the A452 Binswood Street to A445 Rugby Road uses the left turn filter lane. It does NOT go up the signed straight ahead or the signed right turn lanes and then turn left on the A445 Rugby Road. As I said in my post higher up the thread these turning restrictions are signposted by diagrams 1038 and 1039 from the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. Now Northumberland Road is more arguable as there aren't actually road markings there directing to a particular lane, but from the road layout it is very clear that to turn left from Northumberland Road into A452 Lillington Avenue involves using the short left turn filter lane. Again attempting to turn from Northumberland Road into Lillington Avenue via the other lanes would be considered driving without due care and attention at the very least unless a full circuit round the roundabout were done from the right turn lane.

Physically the flows of traffic on that roundabout cross. They enter or exit the roundabout at different points on its circumference. So if they enter or exit the roundabout at different points, and those different points are significantly away from each other on the circumference of the roundabout, then they should be mapped as separate points. If they are mapped as separate points then the ways representing the two traffic flows will cross away from the roundabout. If that is the case then they need turn restrictions in place to prevent improper routing. Hence the ways being split at their intersection to allow the turning restrictions to be in place.

No more ways were used than topologically and systematically demanded by the way the database works in order to represent the actual traffic flows at the junction in a geometric manner which is not too abrupt and harsh.

That is the guiding principle I use when mapping all roads and junctions. Everything is an approximation when mapping, and you will notice, for example, that the Princes Drive bridge outline is represented by nothing more than the four nodes representing the four corners of the bridge plus four more nodes where the ways for Princes Drive and the pavement which cross the bridge intersect it. The way only contains those eight nodes because four are required to represent the geometry of the bridge and four are required to handle the intersections with the ways crossing that bridge. However I judge that the junctions require more nodes to represent their geometries, and where traffic flows differ significantly in their geometries those should also be represented.

Turning to another example of this junction editing: the A452 Princes Drive and Park Drive junction where we have a good example of semantic incorrectness introduced by the editing. Now the according to the map the A452 goes through the junction as two one-way sections for the most part. However there is one section of the northbound A452 which suddenly turns two-way through the junction for some reason. That is for the movement from Princes Drive southbound into the recycling centre. However that movement does not take place on the A452 either factually or semantically. The southbound A452 runs on the other side of the junction and this movement occurs on a service road leading from Princes Drive southbound into the recycling centre. So why is it mapped as taking place on a fictitious second, parallel, southbound portion of the A452 now? Oh and another thing I just noticed as well about that editing: the stop line point for the traffic lights coming out of the recycling centre and the gates for that centre have been merged into a single node. The gates close beyond the stop line for the traffic lights. That's why the two nodes were separated previously. Only a little thing in this case, but emblematic of the style of editing employed at these junctions. Said style being reduction in correctness and detail of the mapping for no real reason.

I have no objection to edits improving the accuracy and fidelity of the map. I have a strenuous objection to edits degrading the accuracy and fidelity of the map, as these edits do.