[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - traffic_signals (Lukas Schaus)
sommerluk at gmail.com
Tue Feb 3 12:39:52 UTC 2015
@Javbw Indeed the problem of the traffic signal system names is still
not solved.However I would keep this separate. Lukas Schaus wants to
represent traffic signal phases (and uses – also in the new proposal –
more than one relation per traffic signal system). The traffic signal
system and its name are a different topics, and I would not merge them
in the same proposal.
In the Tagging_for_complex_junctions_or_traffic_signals_that_are_named
propsal, the part of the area was a little bit disputed for the case
of the traffic signal systems. Various people suggested that a
relation would be better for traffic signal systems. Currently, I tend
to come up with a proposal for a relation for traffic signal system
names – which would not interfer with Lukas Schaus’ proposal. @Javbw
Do you have some feedback from the japanese community? What do they
think about the usage of a relation?
2015-02-03 2:30 GMT+00:00 johnw <johnw at mac.com>:
>> I did a major update on my proposal regarding the mapping of traffic signals.
> As per the talk pageI’d like you to consider including (and documenting in the proposal) rendering the name=* of the “signal” in this situation, as the relation encompasses the entire set of signals - which in Japan, are named, and represented with a singleTraffic_signals icon. Even without a name, the single icon per complex intersection is preferred, as a signal icon at an intersection - even a complex one, is the proper rendering for using relative direction and counting “3 signals down is my business”, and other commonly used relative directions in places with no street addressing system.
> thanks, Javbw
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging