[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency Traffic Signals
baloo at ursamundi.org
Mon Jan 24 01:39:36 GMT 2011
On 01/21/2011 12:40 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 1:03 AM, Paul Johnson <baloo-PVOPTusIyP/srOwW+9ziJQ at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> On 01/17/2011 01:38 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Paul Johnson <baloo-PVOPTusIyP/srOwW+9ziJQ at public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>> Tagging single-aspect signals seems excessive overkill, given the
>>>> propensity of single aspect signals and their standard usage emphasizing
>>>> other traffic control devices (particularly signals that are permanently
>>>> flashing yellow).
>>> Maybe they don't have overhead blinkers in states that begin with O,
>>> but around here there are a couple two- or four-way stops with
>>> single-ball signals suspended from wires.
>> Maybe they don't have yellow flashing signals in states that don't start
>> with O or W, but such signals are extremely common to the point that you
>> might as well map Bott's Dots on the pavement surface while you're at it.
> What's your point? I'm talking about the overhead type that acts just
> like a permanently-blinking traffic signal, not the small lights
> mounted above or below warning signs.
There's not a legal distinction between the two?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 262 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Tagging