[Tagging] traffic_signs: human readable values vs. ISO and law codes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 15. Apr. 2024 um 12:33 Uhr schrieb Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com>:

>
> It seems really obvious that normalized osm words and CC:codepoint are
> different things and belong in different keys.
>


they are both ways to refer to a traffic sign, you do not have to know they
are "CC:codepoint" values, you can just treat them as opaque strings (and
synonyms for normalized osm words where it is the case). If a country
specific maxspeed sign has a specific meaning in this country, the
"normalized osm words" would have to deal with the same issue (there would
have to be a specific normalized osm word for this case).



>
> Part of the point is that renderers (including routing engines) and
> humans want to see a value that can be interpreted regardless of country
> and without having to know that country's laws.
>


traffic signs do not make sense if you do not know the law, they are all
about law. This said, all you need is equivalence lists, this may be
onerous, but it is no different if the CC:codepoint value is tagged with a
specific key like traffic_sign:id or if it is tagged with "traffic_sign".
Either you know what the code stands for, or you cannot use the
information.
Maybe the desire is that people would add both tags, a specific "encoded"
and a generic "human readable" one, but it doesn't seem likely this will
happen, also because we already tag the meaning of the sign with different
tags (not as a sign, but as properties on the road), so the whole point of
tagging signs is not changing the way the data is interpreted, it is a
source why something was mapped as it was mapped, and it is an inventory
where which traffic sign is located.

Cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20240415/8e308993/attachment.htm>