[Tagging] traffic_sign:forward=*

Pee Wee piewie32 at gmail.com
Fri Nov 6 06:59:35 UTC 2015


Just want to let you know that in NL we have 3 kind of cycle ways
<http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~peewee32/traffic_sign/traffic_sign.htm?map=cycleways&zoom=16&lat=52.1317&lon=5.37637&layers=B000FFFFFFFFFTTTTTTFFFFFFFF>.
It is quite common to tag these ways with a traffic_sign in order to
differentiate. This is not only unambiguous but it also makes things easy
to change in the OSM database in case legislation changes. For example.. if
a max speed is introduced in 1 of the 3 types it is easyly added in OSM.
Something that would but a lot more work if the signs were only nodes.

Cheers

PeeWee32



2015-11-04 11:25 GMT+01:00 Gerd Petermann <GPetermann_muenchen at hotmail.com>:

>
> Hi Martin,
>
>
> I think you are mixing two things now. I talked about the "As part of a
> way" part, not the "On a way or area" part,
>
> which looks even more weird to me.
>
>
> Besides that: Yes, I also think that we should map a traffic_sign as a
> node with the position of the sign.
>
>
> Gerd
>
> ------------------------------
> *Von:* Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 4. November 2015 11:11
> *An:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> *Betreff:* Re: [Tagging] traffic_sign:forward=*
>
>
> 2015-11-04 7:17 GMT+01:00 Georg Feddern <osm at bavarianmallet.de>:
>
>> If you read (and use) _only_ traffic_sign:forward - I suppose you read
>> only the german wiki page and then I understand your problem, because that
>> can not work in all cases.
>> If you read the english wiki page, you may understand the intention
>> better - as there is also a traffic_sign:backward variant mentioned.
>>
>> It shall work as in reality and as "computered" in the human mind:
>> Transform the information from the sign (node) to the way in the relevant
>> direction - with all possibilities, but even all obstacles also ...
>>
>> I do not support this "node on way" strategy - I use only the node beside
>> way as tagging for the sign itself - and "always on the right side" ;-) -
>> at least here in Germany.
>>
>
>
>
> Looks as if we agree that traffic signs are point objects at the side of a
> road, not linear stuff on a road. It doesn't make sense to have a traffic
> sign on a long part of a road, it is a point but can have effect for a
> linear piece of road (but then, it is not the traffic sign but the effect
> you want to map).
>
> Browsing the history of the page, I have found out that the idea of adding
> the key to a way is to collect a list of traffic signs that are valid for
> this way. IMHO this doesn't make a lot of sense, because the idea of
> storing the traffic signs was that of being able to verify actual tagging
> on the way (e.g. see from where to where a maxspeed is valid and where it
> changes for sure), but this idea is put from the top to the bottom if you
> repeat the actual effects (which normally do have their own tags, e.g.
> maxspeed, overtaking, access-tags, etc.) with the traffic sign tag.
>
> I propose to at least discourage the use of the traffic_sign key on ways,
> if not deprecate.
>
> 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/20151106/cae8b695/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list