[Tagging] Follow up on destination= and destination:ref=

[Johan C]

Martijn, great to hear that Telenav will be using the destination keys.
Since this tagging will only be used for informational purposes to the
motorist (routing won't be affected) I recommend to tag all info on the
signposts, like the signs, and not only the destination and
destination:ref. Examples can be found here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Destination_details

Also I would recommend to tag the lane information at the same time, since
this also gives extra info to the motorist.

Cheers, Johan

p.s. you can use the Netherlands as a European test bed: 85% of the
motorways has been tagged with signpost and lane info :-)


2014-07-10 17:21 GMT+02:00 fly <lowflight66 at googlemail.com>:

> Am 10.07.2014 15:43, schrieb Martijn van Exel:
> > Hi,
> >
> > (I am sorry if this message appears twice - I wasn't yet subscribed to
> > this list with my Telenav account.)
> >
> > I posted about destination= and destination:ref= a few days ago,
> > linking to my diary entry. I have since received a lot of useful
> > comments. I just wanted to bump this topic because all the discussion
> > has been going on there and not on the list:
> >
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/mvexel/diary/22419#comment27109
> >
> > Here at Telenav, we have now adopted destination= and destination:ref=
> > for signpost information. We have two people adding information about
> > signposts where they don't exist, prioritizing corridors that are of
> > particular importance to us. You can follow their work here:
> >
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Dami_D/history
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ChrisZontine/history
> >
> > We are not removing or replacing existing exit_to tagging. We are
> > focusing on exits that don't have signpost information at all yet.
> >
> > We are also building support for this convention into our OSM model,
> > retaining the existing support for exit_to for now.
> >
> > From the comment thread on my diary entry I get the feeling that there
> > is some sense of agreement that we can move towards finally
> > deprecating exit_to. As much as I would love to, that would require
> > more discussion around what we will do with the existing exit_to tags,
> > support in editors, etc. I would like to start talking about these
> > things, but not before I am comfortable that we want this as a
> > community.
> >
>
> I did follow the comments on your diary but did not comment so far.
>
> * as there is still a traffic sign at the junction you might keep the
> information on the node.
> * if we want to keep the separation in the destination:ref, I would
> prefer destination:ref_to over ref:to. Though there is no problem with
> semi-colon separated values of destination:ref.
> * if we need information about the junction on ways, we already have
> junction=* and junction:ref=* or even junction:ref:lanes:forward=* might
> work.
>
> Just my 2ct
> fly
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140710/6a9ca819/attachment.html>