Re: [OSM-talk] Revisiting traffic control and traffic calming

2017-05-12 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: > ok, multiple from in a relation will solve this. > Isn't it a problem that some "from"s do not end in some "intersection"s ? Perhaps 3 intersection roles, with the single carriageway segment between the dual

Re: [OSM-talk] Revisiting traffic control and traffic calming

2017-05-12 Thread Marc Gemis
ok, multiple from in a relation will solve this. Isn't it a problem that some "from"s do not end in some "intersection"s ? On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: >> >> On Fri, May

Re: [OSM-talk] Revisiting traffic control and traffic calming

2017-05-12 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 1:28 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > >> to: the collection of ways one can travel to after stopping/giving > >> way/waiting for traffic signal. This would include the from way

Re: [OSM-talk] Revisiting traffic control and traffic calming

2017-05-12 Thread Marc Gemis
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> to: the collection of ways one can travel to after stopping/giving >> way/waiting for traffic signal. This would include the from way so >> u-turns have to obey the sign/signal as well. > > > Yes. At a minimum, a

Re: [OSM-talk] Revisiting traffic control and traffic calming

2017-05-12 Thread Paul Johnson
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:57 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: > So would a stop sign / give way sign /traffic signal then be mapped as > > stop_position: node where on the street does one have to stop/give > way/wait for traffic signal > My thinking on this is stop_position isn't

Re: [OSM-talk] Revisiting traffic control and traffic calming

2017-05-12 Thread Marc Gemis
So would a stop sign / give way sign /traffic signal then be mapped as stop_position: node where on the street does one have to stop/give way/wait for traffic signal sign : node (optional) the exact location of the sign from: the way one is following to which the action has to be applied (is this

Re: [OSM-talk] Revisiting traffic control and traffic calming

2017-05-11 Thread Paul Johnson
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > On Sun, 7 May 2017 01:57:54 -0500 > Paul Johnson wrote: > > > I think it's time that we seriously reconsider how stop signs, yield > > signs and traffic calming devices are handled in all but the

Re: [OSM-talk] Revisiting traffic control and traffic calming

2017-05-11 Thread Jean-Marc Liotier
On Sun, 7 May 2017 01:57:54 -0500 Paul Johnson wrote: > I think it's time that we seriously reconsider how stop signs, yield > signs and traffic calming devices are handled in all but the most > simple (all approaches to the affected node apply) cases. [..] I'm > thinking

Re: [OSM-talk] Revisiting traffic control and traffic calming

2017-05-07 Thread Jo
2017-05-07 9:30 GMT+02:00 Paul Johnson : > On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Jo wrote: > >> What about a type=traffic_sign relation? >> >> Where traffic_sign could be stop, give_way, parking >> > > I was thinking the typical highway=* tags for highway=stop,

Re: [OSM-talk] Revisiting traffic control and traffic calming

2017-05-07 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 2:25 AM, Jo wrote: > What about a type=traffic_sign relation? > > Where traffic_sign could be stop, give_way, parking > I was thinking the typical highway=* tags for highway=stop, highway=traffic_signals and highway=give_way. > In case of a stop

Re: [OSM-talk] Revisiting traffic control and traffic calming

2017-05-07 Thread Jo
What about a type=traffic_sign relation? Where traffic_sign could be stop, give_way, parking. We can put a traffic_sign tag on nodes, where they get the country_code:specific_national_code like BE:C1. Several traffic signs can have an effect on several ways and nodes of the road network, so we

Re: [OSM-talk] Revisiting traffic control and traffic calming

2017-05-07 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 2:12 AM, Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > > Do you know of a case where you would have a traffic calming device > only affecting one direction, but not already have a reason to map > each road direction as a separate way? > Somewhat commonly. Oklahoma

Re: [OSM-talk] Revisiting traffic control and traffic calming

2017-05-07 Thread Nicolás Alvarez
2017-05-07 3:57 GMT-03:00 Paul Johnson : > I think it's time that we seriously reconsider how stop signs, yield signs > and traffic calming devices are handled in all but the most simple (all > approaches to the affected node apply) cases. This largely after having a >