[Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

[Simon Poole]

The defaults per territory concept exists since a -very- long time
(2008)  ...
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions

In this case IMHO given that the sign doesn't actually change
access/routing it simply modifies the meaning of the traffic signal, any
tagging should be on the signal and a restriction relation doesn't
actually make any sense.

Simon



Am 02.07.2016 um 18:17 schrieb Colin Smale:
>
> One of these days someone will introduce the concept of defaults per
> territory. My prediction is that this suggestion will either get
> mercilessly shot down in flames, or be quietly accepted, probably
> depending on who suggests it. 
>
>  
>
> //colin
>
> On 2016-07-02 18:06, Johnparis wrote:
>
>> Ooh, I think Martin's suggestion would become a MAJOR project.
>>
>> If I recall correctly, "right turn permitted on red after stop" is
>> the traffic law in the entire United States with the sole exception
>> of New York City. (Wikipedia says this has been the case since late
>> 1978.)
>>
>> Are you seriously suggesting that virtually every single traffic
>> signal in the United States be tagged with "right turn permitted on
>> red after stop" instead of tagging the few with "no turn on red"? How
>> does this comport with the notion of tagging what you see -- the only
>> signs you'll see in the USA are "no turn on red" (with the exception
>> of NYC).
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com
>> <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Message: 2
>> > Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 17:06:59 +0200
>> > From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com
>> <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>>
>> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>> >         <tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org>>
>> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?
>> > Message-ID: <45FED486-3423-40D5-80E4-5D6406FE0202 at gmail.com
>> <mailto:45FED486-3423-40D5-80E4-5D6406FE0202 at gmail.com>>
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > sent from a phone
>> >
>> > > Il giorno 02 lug 2016, alle ore 16:55, Nathan Wessel
>> <nate.wessel at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:nate.wessel at mail.utoronto.ca>>
>> ha critto:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Who is right here? Should I report this as a bug and change the
>> wiki to allow turns on ^no_.*" relations as standard or should the
>> tagging be changed? And how?
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > right turn on red is something that isn't generally allowed, some
>> countries do, some do if additional signs are posted. I'd suggest to
>> explicitly tag the positive case (right turn on red is allowed),
>> rather than assuming a default of yes and tag the negative cases.
>> >
>> > cheers,
>> > Martin
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto: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/20160702/981d19a6/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160702/981d19a6/attachment.sig>