[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - wait

[António Madeira]

The thing is the proposal it's not about giving way, it's about the
probability that you'll have to wait on that lane. For example: if you
have traffic signals, you don't have to give way or concede priority if
the signal is green. The aim of the proposal is to solve the problem of
having more than one information applied to more than one lane in the
same direction. It doesn't substitute the signals and priorities of the
way. Unless there is a way to correspond the values of this key to the
actual signals...


Às 21:29 de 27/12/2020, Martin Koppenhoefer escreveu:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 28. Dec 2020, at 01:20, António Madeira <antoniomadeira at gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>> Doesn't "priority" give the idea that those lanes would have priority?
>> We want precisely the opposite, to indicate that those lanes have to
>> "wait" given a stop, give way sign ou traffic signals ahead.
>
> when you state whether a lane has the priority or not, you also imply vehicles would have to wait in case they don’t have the priority and there are other vehicles which do.
> It’s quite similar, but “wait”ing is a slightly different concept than giving way and I believe the latter is more appropriate.
>
> Cheers Martin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging