Replies in-line... > One could argue that your traffic signal placement is inaccurate. >
I should have said *more* accurate in my previous reply. > The signals on North Parade Road (687898571) are placed right on the > way, but in reality they are on the left (north) side of the road. > Similarly, the signals on southbound Pulteney Road (687898570) are on > the way, rather than on the left (east) side of the road. > See my reply to Pieren. > The lights for northbound Pulteney Road (687898568) are in the middle > of the street, so we can play along with your placement. > What about the set of light underneath the railway overpass on the > east side of the roadway? You never placed a node for them! There aren't any. The pedestrian crossing affects the other signals. > (BTW, who > is supposed to look at those lights?) > I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. > As Richard indicated previously, the map is an abstract representation > of the real world. Placing a single node at the intersection of the > ways with the traffic signal associated with it tells us that this > intersection is controlled by traffic signals. > > If you're going to micro map, then place the signals at the exact > location of the poles, but then you should also be mapping the edges > of the road, and not just a single line down the center of the > roadway. You would have to map the edges of the sidewalk as well, to > define its location. You couldn't just put a point down for a garbage > can, but you would have to define a square or circle of the proper > size so that it renders properly. > I'm not convinced by the use of the word abstraction to describe a map - it's just a representation. I'm trying to map as accurate a representation I can given the tools & time I have available to me. Placing the three nodes is *more* (but not fully) accurate. I will continue to map in this way to make the map more useful. > When creating a map, we really need to decide if we are creating an > abstract representation of the world, or a photo-realistic > representation. > > This is probably the biggest downfall of the open concept of OSM. Each > mapper has a different idea of what the OSM map should look like. I > think there should be a single node at the intersection defining the > traffic signals, and you think there should be three nodes depicting > the four traffic signals. We can play editing war till the cows come > home, and no one wins. > > Unless there's a uniform agreement, it ends up that the user is the > one that loses. > > Have look at your example (http://osm.org/go/eukjJQRVR--), and then > look at this example (http://osm.org/go/eu9d...@j--) > > Based on looking at the first intersection that you have mapped, I > would assume that the lights on Rotherham Road in the second example > would be controlling the intersection with Cliff Hill, where in fact > the light on Rotherham is a pedestrian controlled light for a > crosswalk, and there are no lights at Cliff Hill. > That's a failing on three counts: 1. The tagging is not accurate (no crossing tag) 2.The rendering doesn't distinguish between a traffic-light & a separate pedestrian crossing. 3. (to a lesser extent) You not understanding the representation. Don't you think that as there should be three nodes, that one might represent something different? Cheers Dave F. _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
