[Tagging] barrier enforcing maxwidth

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

Am 08.09.2015 um 12:52 schrieb Carl von Einem <carl at einem.net>:

>>> barrier=guard_rail
>>> maxwidth=2.2
>>> traffic_sign=maxwidth
>> 
>> traffic_sign is a tag used to tag actual traffic signs
>> at their position, it doesn't look right together with
>> a linear barrier like a guard rail which very likely
>> isn't a traffic sign itself along all its way
> 
> Did I write it must be a part of a way?


The proposed tagging doesn't make any sense to me at all. guard rails neither will get maxwidth tags, despite the fact they're the physical reason for an actual maxwidth.


> I think both (node or way) work, but it should definitely be on the way: as a node on the actual position of the traffic sign it's maybe nice as a landmark but completely useless for routing software.



indeed traffic_sign=* nodes are completely useless for common routing software (maybe there's some software that could automatically interpret them, but that's not the reason why I map them, I'm doing it for other mappers to explain my mapping).


> 
> Also the traffic_sign tag indicates (to other mappers...) that the maxwidth value isn't just estimated. I definitely see the traffic sign: https://goo.gl/maps/8KUw7


I'd expect on the highway:
highway=*
maxwidth=2.2m (or without explicit unit)
source:maxwidth=sign

then on another way at the position of the guard rail:
barrier=guard_rail


If you like you could add another node (not part of the highway) with:
traffic_sign=maxwidth 
maxwidth=2.2

(for fellow mappers / as 'landmark')

cheers 
Martin