[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Directional node

Ilya Zverev zverik at textual.ru
Wed Aug 10 07:23:28 BST 2011

> You forgot:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Side_of_stop
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dstop
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:stop
> But I'm not sure to understand what you want with this proposal since you
> already pointed out already existing methods. E.g your example of the
> highway stop could be implemented with an enhancement of the relation
> restriction.

Actually, my proposal IS the said enhancement, with the purpose to not
invent similar relations in the future.

> Your example of the bench could be solved by drawing a line
> for the bench instead of a node.

Yes, I myself don't quite see the point of specifying directions for
features other that road signs, but if the relation allows it - why not?
We'll rid ourselves from a similar discussion in the future.

> Your example of the maxspeed
> has been fixed with the :left/:right or :forward/:backward suffixes.

For ways - yes, but for maxspeed road sign this solution has a lot of flaws
(stated in lot of places), which actually inspired me to revive this
proposal (I've done a lot of road sign mapping in the last month).

>> Also, this is much easier for mappers and consumers
>> than to calculate degrees.
> We already have existing or more intuitive solutions than "calculating
> degrees" (see the discussions about the stop sign). And using relations
> not "easy" for many mappers, especially for newcomers.

Which are (not counting the stop sign solution, since it cannot be applied
to every road sign)? And funnily enough, just yesterday a mapper mailed me
a question about placing stop signs: he couldn't understand how to do it,
when the distance between crossings is very small. Half a year ago I didn't
quite understood those "solutions" either, so I just don't map highway=stop
and highway=give_way. Relations being easy is not the flaw of this
proposal, and I would be very disappointed, if it would be the sole cause
of rejecting it. Sooner or later EVERY object on the map will be included
into one or more relations, and reducing relation count would only delay
that time slightly. For myself, I've already made simple and effective tool
for working with relations: Relation Toolbox. You can search for it on wiki
or on youtube.


More information about the Tagging mailing list