[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency Traffic Signals

Nathan Edgars II neroute2 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 24 15:10:55 GMT 2011

On 1/23/2011 10:51 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> 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.

I partially take this back - there actually is a legal distinction 
(insofar as the MUTCD is adopted by the states):
An "Intersection Control Beacon" is what I'm talking about, as opposed 
to a "Warning Beacon".

More information about the Tagging mailing list