[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency Traffic Signals
Nathan Edgars II
neroute2 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 24 03:51:53 GMT 2011
On 1/23/2011 8:39 PM, Paul Johnson wrote:
> 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?
We don't map only based on legal distinctions.
More information about the Tagging