On 12 April 2011 15:39, Steve Doerr <doerr.step...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/04/2011 15:16, Ed Avis wrote: > >> Peter Miller<peter.miller@...> writes: >> >> Are people happy with: >>> >>> GB:motorway (which implies 70 mph at present and possibly 80 mph in the >>> future) >>> GB:dual_carriageway (which implies 70 mph at present) >>> GB:single_carriageway (which implies 60 mph at present) >>> >> I think this is a sensible scheme and can go either into 'maxspeed' (in >> which >> case client applications will need a lookup table of what GB:motorway >> means) >> or else into 'maxspeed:sign' (in which case the 'maxspeed' tag contains >> the >> literal mph value, and will need automated retagging in case the national >> limit >> changes). >> >> However, one flaw is that the speed limit sign is not for 'dual >> carriageway >> limit applies' but rather 'national speed limit applies'. So we still >> would not >> be tagging exactly what appears on the sign, but adding some additional >> interpretation. I think that is fair enough, but those who hold to a >> strict >> on-the-ground principle may disagree. >> > > I was going to make the same point. > > maxspeed:derivation=national_dual|national_single|motorway|restricted ? >
I think we are getting there. Two points: 1) The phase maxspeed:type has already be proposed and is in use in some places. Can I there suggest maxspeed:type rather than maxspeed:derivation. I think that will also be more understandable to people who's first language is not English. 2) In place of 'national' can I suggest 'GB:' to fit with international conventions. Which brings one to the following: maxspeed:type=GB:dual|GB:single|GB:motorway|GB:restricted Regards, Peter > -- > Steve > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
