[Tagging] How to tag an imaginary oneway barrier

Pee Wee piewie32 at gmail.com
Sun Feb 9 13:01:23 UTC 2014

Thanks Martin

This then means that tagging a
on a node that is part of a way is also more then arguable. We'll have to
keep on searching for better ways to map traffic signs. Maybe the Finnish
style <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Finland:Traffic_signs> is not so
bad after all ;-)


2014-02-06 17:07 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:

> 2014-02-05 17:14 GMT+01:00 Pee Wee <piewie32 at gmail.com>:
>  I'd discourage this tagging (and, semantically it doesn't make sense
>>> anyway).
>>> OK but why does it not make sense semantically? It seems to me that it
>> is unambigious
> it has no meaning at all. A point / node has no direction, so
> forward/backward do not make any sense, only ways can have
> forward/backward. What you want to do is an implicit relation (you want to
> say: this node "a" in forward direction of this way "b" has this
> restriction "c") without creating it explicitly. As it is implicit, common
> tools won't know about it (they only know explicit relations). One could
> implement a method to determine such situations for the tools, but that
> still doesn't make the semantics nice looking, you still have a tag on a
> node which is actually about the direction of a way without the way being
> explicitly stated. A better mapping would somehow reference this way (and
> the node, i.e. a relation).
> cheers,
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap<http://www.openstreetmap.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140209/f6af7d09/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list