<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2014-02-01 10:05, Pee Wee wrote :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAPx7Go7=qXoOFP90FC54WBK71+uS-=TVqhQseCH+3XbMdRcijQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>On the <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=394396#p394396">Dutch
forum</a> there is some discussion on how to tag a common
situation. <br>
</div>
It is about a street that has no traffic sign on one end (side
A) and a <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nederlands_verkeersbord_C6.svg">C6
sign</a> on the other end (side B) . Ofcoarse it is not
allowed to enter this street by car from side B. If you enter
the street by car from side A you are allowed to drive all the
way. But you are even allowed to drive to (lets say) half way
and then return. In other words... this is not a oneway street
for motorcars. This makes the traffic sign a more or less
imaginary oneway barrier.<br>
<div><br>
Let's for simplicity's sake asume the implication of the sign
is "motorcar=no", how should this be tagged?<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<a
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Belgium#C3">In
Belgium, sign C3 and similar means "no entry in both directions"</a>.<br>
<br>
<img alt="C3"
src="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/thumb/5/58/Belgium-trafficsign-c3.svg/80px-Belgium-trafficsign-c3.svg.png"
moz-do-not-send="true" width="80" height="80"><br>
<br>
<a
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Belgium#C1">Sign
C1 means one-way</a>.<br>
<br>
<img alt="C1"
src="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/thumb/6/62/Belgium-trafficsign-c1.svg/80px-Belgium-trafficsign-c1.svg.png"
moz-do-not-send="true" width="80" height="80"><br>
<br>
The difference is that the driver facing C1 is told that he can
drive "round the block" to enter the street while that there is no
hope to do so in case of C3. This sounds very sound.<br>
<br>
I think it's a European rule and so, that, from a European
perspective, it's a Road Administration error to place a C3 signal
at only one end and hence that OSM shouldn't try to map signaling
errors.<br>
<br>
From a pure logical point of view "This signs tell you that you
cannot enter this street, but that you may go round the block and
that, if you're lucky enough, you may find no sign there. In that
case, you may come back here through the other end and U-turn right
behind this sign just as if it did not exist. Good luck." sounds
kinda funny. But maybe only to me.<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2014-02-01 17:39, Colin Smale wrote
:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:b3dabd490342f822952f7fd603e75bf7@xs4all.nl"
type="cite">
<p><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">On 2014-02-01 17:30,
Masi Master wrote:</span></p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding-left:5px;
border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px">
<pre>Normally traffic signs belongs to the road to the next intersection/crossing.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>That depends on the country - different jurisdictions have
different conventions. In the UK the sign's effect is often
"until further notice", i.e. until there is another sign telling
you differently. It doesn't automatically get nullified at the
first side road like it does in many countries.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="font-family: 'Lucida Grande', Verdana, Arial,
Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"></span>Strange to me
again because the reason why the signs <b>have to</b> be repeated
is that drivers entering the road at that "next crossing" wouldn't
know them otherwise. How do the UK drivers know?<br>
</p>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>André.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>