[OSM-newbies] highway=traffic_signals

[Dave F.]

Richard Wait wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Dave F. <davefox at madasafish.com> wrote:
>   
>> Right, OK, let me clarify my understanding of traffic lights. The nodes
>> I place represent not only the actual lights but also where the vehicles
>> are meant to halt. I see it as a type of barrier.
>> That pole is a combination of two lights for traffic travelling
>> different directions who's halts are positioned at the nodes.
>> Similar to the one in the middle of the pedestrian crossing.
>>     
>
> Dave, I suspect that you and I will continue to disagree on the matter
> of highway=traffic_signal.
>
> I'm not sure I understand your argument above.  Surely if you want to
> indicate where vehicles are to halt, that should be on the way?  In my
> experience, the place to halt is different from the location of the
> signal controlling the intersection.  If you are tagging beside the
> way, are you marking the location of the supporting pole?
I'm not. I'm tagging on the way. I'm not sure how you came to the 
decision that I wasn't.

>   If the pole supports more than one traffic_signal[1], do you tag one or more?
> I don't support your method of tagging highway=traffic_signal, 

I'm not using traffic_signal in the singular, I'm using 
highway=traffic_signals
Nor am I mapping individual poles.
> and I don't recommend it for newcomers to OSM.  At a minimum, what you are
> doing is more complicated 

Maybe, but more accurate I believe.

> than the widely accepted practice of tagging
> the intersecting node that is controlled by the traffic signal.
>
> I do support your right to engage in this bit of micro-mapping.  If
> you must continue this, please also include highway=traffic_signals on
> the intersecting node. 
That would make it an inaccurate representation of what's there.
In my example there are three traffic signals that interact to control 
traffic at one intersection, which is what I've mapped.


>  Failing to do so will break the tools that
> expect the much-more-common intersecting node use.  See also the
> area-micro-mapping example that includes traditional vector mapping,
> to support existing tools.
>
> To attempt to innovate at the expense of the accepted model seems
> ill-considered.  And please consider working to advance the practice
> of micro mapping, by improving an existing proposal for junction, or
> intersection relations or something similar[2].

I was unaware of this proposal. I shall digest it shortly but on initial 
viewing it appears to be lacking traffic signals.

>   The best complex
> innovations in OSM are created deliberately, and by considering many
> contexts. [3]
>   

Well I'm certainly not mapping it accidentally :)
> [1] http://www.flickr.com/photos/30249912@N00/351789829/
> [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dtraffic_control
> [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/House_numbers/Karlsruhe_Schema
>
> _______________________________________________
> newbies mailing list
> newbies at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies