[Tagging] Traffic_sign discussion

Sun Oct 14 22:40:43 UTC 2018

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 1:05 AM Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl> wrote:

> I am not saying these cases are impossible, only that they have to be
> accommodated, preferably as uniformly as possible. It is not intended as
> criticism, but as a critical test of fitness for purpose. If the tagging
> scheme can't handle these real-world situations, it's not ready for go-live
> yet.
>
-I think the scheme is ready. If I think about the Spanish law situations I
think with little modifications it is for all the countries around the
World.

> This is of course a fairly easy one. What European regulations are you
> referring to here by the way?
>
-Well, I have to say the first time I heard this european recommendation
was at 2006 in TV news when in Catalonia there was a new plan to put new
destination signs along all Catalonia. It is difficult to find the exact
law it says that.
The first book you can find is the *Manual SENIOR de la senyalització
interurbana de Catalunya de la Generalitat de Catalunya*
It is a PDF . It says basic concepts:
All traffic signs should have Conspicuite ,have to be legible and
recognisable,comprehensible and credible.
Also in Catalonia we have RACC which makes some surveys inside EUROTEST
about traffic signs. Some examples

(estudio señales tráfico RACC)

http://mig.racc.es/pub/ficheros/actualidad/actualidad_dp_ix_encuesta_racc_jzq_5feb3758.pdf
http://imagenes.racc.es/pub/ficheros/adjuntos/adjuntos_dp_senales_de_trafico_2008_jzq_dba4c612.pdf

(Other EURO TEST traffic signs studies)

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/19587284/international-road-signs-eurotest
https://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/EuroTest_Roadworks_2006.pdf
https://www.ttsitalia.it/file/Libreria/Europe/EuroTest05_Mway_Roadworks.pdf

little article in the Spanish DGT magazine
http://www.dgt.es/revista/archivo/pdf/num175-2005-Seniales.pdf

(Other organizations and documents)

UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE

Convenio CEPE de las Naciones Unidas sobre señalización vial
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/conventn/Conv_road_traffic_SP.pdf

https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/roadsafe/publications/docs/Consolidated_Resolution_on_Road_Traffic_RE2_e.pdf

In the 1.3 you can read the conditions United Nations recommends for the
traffic signs of confirmatory direction signs (our destination signs)

"The confirmatory direction signs should possess the following
characteristics:
                  (a)
Shape of the sign - As the confirmatory sign falls within the category of
informative
signs, it is rectangular in shape.
                  (b)
Colour  of  the  sign  -  The  colours  adopted  are  those  used  for
place  and  route
identification signs.
                  (c)
Dimensions of the sign - The dimensions depend on the amount of information
to  be  given  and  on  the  dimensions  adopted  for  place  signs  on
the  route  in
question. If, in addition to the name of the next main town, intermediate
localities
are  also  indicated,  it  is  recommended  that  not  more  than  two
such  localities
should be mentioned, and that their names, and the distances at which they
are
situated, may be indicated in smaller letters and figures (preferably in
the ratio
of 2 to 3) than those relating to the main town."

Fundación Abertis (UNESCOMEDCENTER)
http://www.unescomedcenter.org/es/noticias/20/los-expertos-apuestan-por-mejorar-la-senalizacion-y-sancionar-para-que-el-conductor-tome-conciencia-del-riesgo

ERF Position
https://issuu.com/erf9/docs/erf_position_paper_on_vertical_sign

-Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22
June 1998
-Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 25 October 2012 on European standardisation, amending
-Council Directives 89/686/EEC and 93/15/EEC and Directives 94/9/EC,
94/25/EC, 95/16/EC, 97/23/EC, 98/34/EC, 2004/22/EC, 2007/23/EC, 2009/23/EC
and 2009/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council

>
> How do you make the link between the qualifier and the main sign it
> applies to? Does it only apply to the one sign immediately above? Or to all
> signs above? Or the sign(s) below? How would these links work for multiple
> qualifier signs, like "except for buses" / "except with permit"?
>
-Complimentary traffic signs are also traffic signs, with other position
but with all its identity. Here in Spain traffic signs law say second sign
says the condition the first traffic sign is applied.
Also you have some keys to mark or explain the meaning of the complementary
traffic sign. You can translate the information you read into OSM keys and
values

except buses? bus=yes
except with permit? access=designated?

> How does anyone or anything (a data consumer) connect the
> "traffic_sign:forward=ES:S235a" to the way that it applies to? Not all
> junctions are nice 4-way 90-degree junctions. What have you "tested"
> exactly? Where do you place the node for this sign in relation to the way?
> Maybe if you could give a link or an exact location of this sign, then we
> could have a look and see what you intend.
>
-As most personal, and located traffic signs is
destination/orientation/location/confirmation traffic signs, and knowing in
each country these traffic signs are very different I have developed a
little more an existing scheme I was found here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Destination_details

It was a good idea but has a lack of things I have found necessary so I
have improved it:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_traffic_signs_tagging#Destination_signs

First of all, every gantry and destination big panel...is a "normal traffic
sign"
Here in Spain have id's as ES:S235 or ES:S373 or ES:CAT:OR51
There are panels or destinations that are located in certain order.
As you read before:
-The nearest town
-The second nearest and if exist bigger town
-The biggest and important town
So you have almost three positions, three "possible destinations".
But also sometimes (not always) you need a main panel that is located at
las point before the exit so you have a second panel with another three
possible destination different than first. Also thereis a possibility to
exist a "third or end_panel"
Also you have to think in possible variations, symbols, references of the
target roads...
So then you have this:

marking position with subkey : :upper : (middle or unique) and :lower
each destination can has :ref ,: (the name of the destination itself) ,
:symbol and :distance

for the number of arrows you can use...the number of lanes (the meaning the
arrows marks)
for the direction of the arrow or of the traffic orientation little traffic
sign ...turn:destination

And like the scheme has to be useful and customizable for all over the
world lots of colour tags:

colour:arrow
colour:back
colour:ref
colour:int_ref
colour:text

All these data is located inside the traffic sign depending of the code of
the traffic sign and the kind of road (e.g. in a local road there are
little destination traffic signs, in a motorway there are very big gantries
with more information.

I recognise you I have only model test for ES:S235 or ES:S373 and similar
because I am developing configuration files and models for Kendzi3D for
motorway signs . But an example of a bug traffic sign with destination
scheme would be this

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5973397128#map=18/41.19485/1.53973&layers=D

for

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=41.19532273&lng=1.5396553&z=17&pKey=hp85wzgCchanBQ4jGDjymg&focus=photo&x=0.5030540864602785&y=0.5050465696601&zoom=0

> Of course the lanes scheme exists, but it is currently applied to ways.
> Should we indicate a bus lane by a node representing the sign, or as an
> attribute of the way? Surely not as both
>

-Why not? One is the way and other is the sign...as in reality happens

> . No trucks in the left hand lane? Easy to tag on the way with lanes
> tagging, but what about the sign, which might also say "buses only in the
> second lane except on Tuesday" etc etc.
>
> -With designated key I have proposed the other day. Traffic signs warns
you about ALL the situations they want you have got controlled.

> I am not trying to be difficult here - these crazy scenarios really do
> occur, and OSM needs to be able to deal with them. You are suggesting
> encoding this information as tagging on a single node; I think that's a
> challenge if you expect anyone/anything to be able to interpret it properly.
>

-With presets and styles? No, it is not difficult, you are going filling
the fields with the description or photo, as Streetcomplete or Pic4review
does.

Is a gantry tagged as a single node, or a "way" crossing the highway? The
> gantry may cross the entire highway, but the signs are only in one
> direction. How to handle that?
>

-You mark only the traffic sign is in the gantry. But if you want to use
the key for the subjection as pole or gantry you can. Also you have to
think there are gantry special traffic signs and panels, not "normal"
,(Variable info, also)
ES:S373 is ALWAYS in a gantry. There is no errors about that.

Indeed, but we are talking about traffic signs here. How would you propose
> to
>

-Nodes have the info to show and apply if there is no info in the way. Also
the info on both has to be the same.Traffic system recognition does like
this .

>
> I have experienced traffic sign recognition (in a recent BMW) and I wasn't
> very impressed. The signs are not used for real navigation, only for
> information. The routing is done in the old-fashioned way. Traffic sign
> recognition can only ever be an additional source of hints, and cannot be
> relied upon as the only basis for routing decisions.
>

-When the car will drive itself without your help will you be asked in
every decision the car will have to choose of the car will understand the
traffic sign, process it and take the decision? Ask Why exists Google
Street View or some uses of Mapillary. You will find the clue ;)

> Important is not the right word here, that's too subjective. I am making
> the assumption that you are thinking of being able to use the traffic sign
> information for routing
>
-for routing, for info, for driving. Future starts here.

> . Maybe that assumption is wrong, I am not sure any more. But for the
> foreseeable future routing will be graph-based, which means understanding
> the attributes that apply to way segments and junctions. The current model
> is workable - there are many examples of routing based on OSM data. I
> assume you want the routers to be able to understand the traffic sign
> information, to reduce the necessity for redundant information in OSM.
>
-and to add the information it lacks now in OSM.

yopaseopor
Sorry for the delay making this answer, it was National day here on Spain
and I was AFK.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181015/acb72110/attachment-0001.html>