[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Tagging for complex junctions or traffic signals that are named

Lukas Sommer sommerluk at gmail.com
Sun Sep 21 21:48:14 UTC 2014


> It should be pretty trivial to have the area share nodes with the highway
ways where the signals would normally be mapped.
> Like drawing a square around a tic-tac-toe board, but the shared nodes
are only on one side at a time.

Here, I strongly disagree. The defination on the proposal page is clear: We
do not want to have tags on the shared nodes. Only this way it is clear
what is within the area, and what is without. We should not give up this
possiblility. And your idea actually would give up this possiblilty.

Next problem with your idea: You need to have shared nodes not only for
incoming, but also for the outgoing oneways. And mostly there is no real
traffic signal _after_ you have passed a crossroad. Nevertheless you have
there a node. So later you won’t be able to know if on a specific node
there is really a traffic signal or not.

We don’t have any need to represent the individual traffic signals in the
border. It would make the usage far to complicate. And you would not gain
anything. If you want to mark individual traffic signals, use the existing
tagging. But don’t invent a new one – don’t make it unnecessarily
complicate!

> Also, I think It could also share nodes with the walkways and other
pedestrian oriented ways, as the signal would be part of their routing as
well.

Here, I agree. I assumed that people would do so automatically, but I’ll
also add it on the wiki page.

Lukas Sommer

2014-09-21 21:30 GMT+00:00 John Willis <johnw at mac.com>:

> It should be pretty trivial to have the area share nodes with the highway
> ways where the signals would normally be mapped. Like drawing a square
> around a tic-tac-toe board, but the shared nodes are only on one side at a
> time.
>
> Also, I think It could also share nodes with the walkways and other
> pedestrian oriented ways, as the signal would be part of their routing as
> well.
>
> Javbw
>
>
> > On Sep 21, 2014, at 3:48 PM, Lukas Sommer <sommerluk at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > So the nodes where the signals_area intersects the highways is where
> the signals would normally be mapped for complex intersections?
> >
> > Not exactly. It would be difficult to do so if you have really complex
> junctions with really many individual traffic signals and you want to catch
> all of them – a zickzack that is not easy to draw and not practical to
> maintain. The area is drawn just _around_ everything that is considered the
> junction.
> >
> > About the individual traffic signals. We recommand as current
> best-practice to not map them if you use the area. Means: Don’t do both
> things. (But maybe in the future this could be considered useful and it
> could be done without breaking the tagging scheme just like every other
> normal traffic signal with highway=traffic_signals on a node.)
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140921/2fa6b56c/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list