BakedCatboy

Only with participating libraries it seems

The first commenter is obviously a cat in disguise.

No problem! I don't really do much road mapping so I'm still figuring it out, I do mostly just sidewalks and parking lots, but I'm noticing some intersections near me also have some messed up lane configurations.

Another thing that might help is ab-street, if you download the desktop version you can import an area using an overpass query and view it using the viewer program bundled with ab-street, and it lets you click on segments and view where the turns connect from and to. It might not be 100% accurate but it's another thing that helps to debug. I found that a road near me shows up in ab-street with the wrong number of lanes which pointed me to an issue.

I think you can use Immich external libraries for this, also to be extra safe you can just mount your external images folder as read only by adding :ro to the docker volume mount so that the container won't be able to modify anything as a precaution.

I have no clue about the whole problem, but I looked at what I think is the first issue where it looks like it tells you to turn left where the sliplane splits to go right into the shred right parking lot.

My guess is that turn:lanes is supposed to be tagged immediately before the intersection it applies to, and since the turn:lanes are tagged on the way before the sliplane attaches, it's applying left|none|none to the sliplane junction, where it sees 2 outgoing ways and applies "left" to old Shakopee (going straight) and probably "none" to the sliplane. I would try removing the turn:lanes from the old Shakopee section before the sliplane but keep it on the way that is actually connected to the main intersection there.

I also noticed that there is a turn restriction for coming out of the shred right sliplane entrance and then turning 180° to go eastbound on Shakopee. Since that sliplane entrance is one way, I don't think that turn restriction is necessary or really helps, and it might be confusing to osmand. Without that turn restriction, I don't think it would be necessary to have the old Shakopee split into 2 ways before the sliplane and after up until the intersection, so merging those 2 segments of old Shakopee (immediately before the sliplane entrance to shred right and up until the intersection itself) might simplify things.

So I guess that's 2 ideas that I think might fix the issue. Hopefully that works and can be applied to some of the other issues, I'm not sure about the intersection itself, I'll have to look at it closer later.

Edit: on second thought, I think the convention is to have turn:lanes marked whenever there are turn markings on the asphalt, so I would suggest removing the turn restriction on the sliplane and merging the 2 ways on either side of where the sliplane connects - I think that way it maybe won't try to apply the turn:lanes to the sliplane since it won't be attached to the end of a way with turn:lanes but in the middle (I'm guessing that's how it works). Removing the turn:lanes on the west section I think would go against the wiki guidelines. If it was necessary to have 2 segments for shakopee then a hack would be to attach the sliplane a few feet before or after where the 2 segments of shakopee join, but that shouldn't be necessary here.

The !mutual_aid@hexbear.net community seems similar to what you're asking for. I'm not sure if there are more similar comms on other instances but that's just the one I know of.

Is that what the kids are calling a discussion these days? As interesting as it's been seeing you show your whole ass, I'm gonna ask you to disengage since you are unwilling to have a productive discussion.

Right, so a non answer again. You sure love not answering questions.

you certainly haven’t

What comment did I miss that provides clarification on your reasoning behind some episodes being racist meaning that the cartoon is not appropriate? Your silence is deafening.

you should just try asking

Do you not have eyes?

you got your first answer last time by asking a direct question

I asked that exact question 3 times, and it's structurally identical to every other time I asked "so is xyz the problem that you have with using this cartoon?", so either you just forgot to have a stick up your ass about how people ask questions or you're just being difficult.

for some reason you’re pretending not to see them.

I literally quoted every time you said something about your thoughts on this issue, but you already handwaved that away with:

sure, why not keep guessing instead of asking directly

What do you want me to do? Look at your previous messages? I did and you accused me of guessing.

Please, let me know whether I've missed a relevant comment that you made that clarifies this:

the racism and subsequent cultural insensitivity is explained very clearly

bugs Bunny cartoons are historically, factually racist

it sounds like you do understand that cartoon is racist

that super racist cartoon

Hmm well your lack of any substantive answer leaves me no option but to guess again - it's definitely your imperative if you want to be intentionally obtuse though. You shouldn't be surprised when people don't receive you well.

If the racist bugs bunny episodes isn't what makes Bugs Bunny as a whole problematic to use in a meme, then what is the reason in the first place to complain that Bugs Bunny is racist and shouldn't be used? Again I go back to the fact that the only things you have mentioned is the fact that it's racist and that it shouldn't be used. I'm still looking for an answer to how exactly the two are connected, if you'd be so kind to enlighten me :)

Third time's the charm?

is your complaint that the existence of some racist Bugs Bunny episodes makes any usage of the Bugs Bunny character problematic?