[Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ?

Pieren pieren3 at gmail.com
Tue Apr 8 11:57:37 UTC 2014

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:57 PM, fly <lowflight66 at googlemail.com> wrote:

> The major points in my view are:
> * We do not need to tag cul-de-sac as defined by the traffic_sign. This
> information is available through geometry and/or access tags.

This is not related with tagging on the last node or the way. The tag
is only really required when the geometry is questionable and optional
in all other cases.

> * The traffic_sign is always about motorized vehicles but we map for all
> traffic modes. noexit=yes is wrong as soon as there is any connected
> highway.

I'm not saying that "noexit=yes" on ways is when you have a traffic
sign neither it's only for motorized vehicles. Either it's possible to
continue with some kind of vehicle (or by foot) and then we map the
next highway segment with appropriate "access" tags; or it's not
possible and then the tag "noexit" makes sense, on the last node or on
the last way, with or without traffic sign.

> One way to manifest the difference is to only tag it on nodes and not on
> ways.

The difference of what ? If you mean the difference between an impasse
without traffic sign and an impasse with traffic sign, it is still an
impasse ....

> No one did blame anyone. I only tried to find the reasons for this
> misunderstanding and one was definitely the wiki page which is still not
> perfect but did get some updates the last days. Some other pages where
> updated, too.

Once you admit that the tag on the way is also clear and
understandable, why do you want to forbid it ?

> Sure, but overall it makes it more difficult and how should this work
> with splitting ways ? Could you please point me to one editor which
> properly works with splitting a way tagged with noexit=yes or don't you
> think that it is wrong that after the split both parts are tagged with it ?

The noexit tag is only important for QA tools if the way is not
extended and near another way (not an intersection). For contributors,
I don't think it's really hurting if the "noexit" is tagged on several
segments instead of one.

> We could simply deprecate noexit=* and replace it with note=noexit but I
> am not sure if this solves our problem and tools need to support strings
> and multivalues as noexit might not be the only word of the note=* tag.

Renaming the tag doesn't help here.


More information about the Tagging mailing list