[Tagging] Proposed relation give_way
simone.saviolo at gmail.com
Thu Mar 14 15:50:39 UTC 2013
2013/3/14 Steve Doerr <doerr.stephen at gmail.com>
> I suppose the main downside is that it requires a relation. I've not
> mapped give-way relationships myself, but it would be good to map them, and
> the node method seems simpler and would involve less database bloat than
> adding a relation at, basically, every junction. I would think the node
> method would be sufficient for most junctions, while the relation method
> could be available for any more complex cases. As far as I can see, with
> the node method, the important thing to remember is that the give-way node
> needs to be closer to the intersection node to which it applies than to any
> other intersection node on the way, which doesn't seem too difficult to
> achieve. It should perhaps be made clear in the wiki that there is not
> necessarily an actual Give Way sign: it can be used to represent a give-way
> line as well.
I see your point, and I've tagged a few highway=give_way and highway=stop
nodes myself. However, since we are already mapping turn restrictions as
relations, I think it wouldn't be so absurd to map give-way's and stops
that way too. Granted, there are much more stops than the turn restrictions
that need to be described explicitly.
I think the two ways may coexist: the node method being easier on the
mappers, and the relation being easier on the consumers.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging