Re: [Tagging] traffic lights
2011/9/6 sergio sevillano sergiosevillano.m...@gmail.com: the present tagging schema means this crossing is regulated by traffic lights (highway=traffic_lights in the intersection node) the relation proposal connects all traffic lights of an intersection meaning the same thing this crossing is regulated by traffic lights and they are placed here. what i was talking about is placing the tags at the nodes of ways that are affected by a traffic lights in more detail (no need for relations here) the approach is important if we map the physical traffic light signs then it will be chaos as this is solved differently by country. in this case the nodes should be alone (not in the way) at the side maybe... but i would not recommend to do this approach at all. I want to point out that the frequently used tag is _not_ highway=traffic_lights but it is highway=traffic_signals. As the tag is in plural this already suggests the more generalized way of tagging a whole intersection instead of a single light. Opposed to this the tag definition seems to contradict this interpretation: A traffic signal for regulating circulation. (otherwise this could have been: an intersection controlled by traffic lights). Personally I am not against tagging single devices if one wants to do this, but would prefer to do it with a different tag. Mappping single devices might be interesting if on the same intersection the devices have different features (think about traffic_signals:sound=* and other subtags). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] traffic lights
On 09/05/2011 01:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/9/5 Bryce Nesbittbry...@obviously.com: On 09/03/2011 07:30 AM, sergio sevillano wrote: are we mapping reality or for the router ? The question is at what resolution are we mapping? IMHO we should try to map at the highest possible resolution (our db has a ~1cm limit for coordinate precision, our zoom 18 is approx. 1:1500). Lower resolution data can generally be derived from the higher resolution data. I consider also robustness, meaning map at the highest possible level that has a reasonable chance of receiving ongoing maintenance. In the case of traffic lights if the intersection node is marked as having the proper control (e.g. none, stop light, stop sign, yield, TOUCAN, PELICAN, PUFFIN, Pegasus, etc), then additional detail is harmless. A future simple router can route. A future complex router can process the additional relations and details, when and if they gain sufficient traction. Thus I encourage people not to remove the control type from the intersection node, but rather supplement it. Future rendering software can suppress the intersection node's rendering if more detailed information is available. -Bryce ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] traffic lights
2011/9/6 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: In the case of traffic lights if the intersection node is marked as having the proper control (e.g. none, stop light, stop sign, yield, TOUCAN, PELICAN, PUFFIN, Pegasus, etc), then additional detail is harmless. A future simple router can route. A future complex router can process the additional relations and details, when and if they gain sufficient traction. +1 Thus I encourage people not to remove the control type from the intersection node, but rather supplement it. Future rendering software can suppress the intersection node's rendering if more detailed information is available. +1, I agree with others here that it seems as if we needed different tags for different abstraction levels of traffic lights: a simple one which states this crossing is controlled by traffic lights and more complex ones for the details. The established tag highway=traffic_signals is currently used in both ways and the page states A traffic signal for regulating circulation. but also As of now, there is no well established convention.. For complex sets there is a proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Set_of_Traffic_Signals from 2008 which not only is marked as abandoned but actually seems to be so ( used only 48 times). The discussion references http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Junctions and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Junction but actually junction is used in nearly all cases for roundabouts and not with the other values from the proposal. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] traffic lights
sergio sevillano sergiosevillano.m...@gmail.com wrote: no matter where you are you can map this if you map the actual sign it will be different depending in what country you are. us has traffic lights above and ahead the crossing but europe exactly where you stop. If the traffic signals in Europe are directly above where you are supposed to stop, rather than ahead of that point, then how do you tell when it is OK to resume moving? Unless you are on a motorcycle, have a sun roof, or are in a convertible with the top down, you can't see anything that is directly above your vehicle. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] traffic lights
2011/9/6 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com: If the traffic signals in Europe are directly above where you are supposed to stop, rather than ahead of that point, then how do you tell when it is OK to resume moving? First of all it is not everywhere the same in Europe, it really depends on the country, and sometimes also on the city. Usually (at least in Germany and Italy) there is (should be according to the law) a white line before the actual lights which indicates where to stop (quite similar to the line for stop signs). In the Rome area (due to generally overcrowded roads and flexible interpretation of traffic rules) there is often 2 synchronized lights for the same crossing: one shortly after the white stop line (i.e. before the pedestrian crossing) and another one after the crossing, so that people who didn't stop at the line but after (sometimes even after the pedestrian crossing) still can see when the lights turn green. Another aspect that should be taken into account when inventing the model for actual traffic light positions: There is sometimes indipendent traffic lights for different directions on the same lane. E.g. a lane where you can turn left or go straight might have 2 traffic lights, where you could have states like: green for left turn, red for straight on. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] traffic lights
On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: Having said that, I do have some questions about marking in detail Should we use different tags for this whole intersections has lights and there are lights in this exact spot. My first instinct is to say yes, so that data users can easily search for one or the other. You could say that any lights not on a way are one, and lights on a way are the other, but what about overhead signals that hang over the centre of the way/intersection? Is there a problem with marking an intersection both ways? Yes. The problem is that an intersection is not a single point. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=van+dyke+and+north+dale+mabry,+tampahl=enll=28.127814,-82.502552spn=0.0007,0.000603sll=28.0725,-82.548614sspn=0.015847,0.01929vpsrc=6t=hz=21 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.127645lon=-82.502359zoom=18layers=M ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] traffic lights
On 9/6/2011 10:45 AM, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Stephen Hopeslh...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a problem with marking an intersection both ways? Yes. The problem is that an intersection is not a single point. So you tag each intersection node. Routers can compensate by treating two traffic_signals in close proximity as one for the purpose of adding time. It's a very rough estimate anyway. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.127645lon=-82.502359zoom=18layers=M Thanks for reminding me of Frederik's damage. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] traffic lights
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Yes. The problem is that an intersection is not a single point. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=van+dyke+and+north+dale+mabry,+tampahl=enll=28.127814,-82.502552spn=0.0007,0.000603sll=28.0725,-82.548614sspn=0.015847,0.01929vpsrc=6t=hz=21 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.127645lon=-82.502359zoom=18layers=M Without commenting on the issue at hand - it seems that on the Openstreetmap map the lower tertiary road after the split has its oneway traffic wrong way around. -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] traffic lights
El 06/09/2011, a las 01:43, Stephen Hope escribió: I have no problem with some people just mapping it has traffic lights and others adding more detail, if they feel a need for it. Most people are never going to need (or have the time/knowledge to enter) more than there are lights here, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the option for more. But if the only knowledge I have is there are lights here, I'd rather be able to mark that than have to fake up some light pole positions or leave it without. i agree Having said that, I do have some questions about marking in detail Should we use different tags for this whole intersections has lights and there are lights in this exact spot. My first instinct is to say yes, so that data users can easily search for one or the other. You could say that any lights not on a way are one, and lights on a way are the other, but what about overhead signals that hang over the centre of the way/intersection? the present tagging schema means this crossing is regulated by traffic lights (highway=traffic_lights in the intersection node) the relation proposal connects all traffic lights of an intersection meaning the same thing this crossing is regulated by traffic lights and they are placed here. what i was talking about is placing the tags at the nodes of ways that are affected by a traffic lights in more detail (no need for relations here) the approach is important if we map the physical traffic light signs then it will be chaos as this is solved differently by country. in this case the nodes should be alone (not in the way) at the side maybe... but i would not recommend to do this approach at all. Is there a problem with marking an intersection both ways? right now there is. the relation is good to say this crossing is regulated by traffic lights and therefore the router can give direction in the turn left at next traffic light manner the same way as the actual low resolution schema works. the detailed schema now uses use exactly the same tagging, so the solution could be: - single node meaning this crossing is regulated by traffic lights highway=traffic_lights at the intersection node - relation grouping several single traffic lights meaning this crossing is regulated by traffic lights highway=traffic_lights at the relation - single traffic light (part of a relation, or not), when mapping in detail, could be changed to highway=single_traffic_light at the waiting point node of the way meaning this spot of the way is regulated by traffic lights (wait here) Should we mark where the pole is, or where the lights are? Many of our traffic lights hang over the road, with the pole base off to one side. i think none, we should map the node of the way affected by the traffic light (wait here). ... Another aspect that should be taken into account when inventing the model for actual traffic light positions: There is sometimes indipendent traffic lights for different directions on the same lane. E.g. a lane where you can turn left or go straight might have 2 traffic lights, where you could have states like: green for left turn, red for straight on. Cheers, Martin straight or left are regulated by the same traffic_lights you can find them open or closed alternatively so even you have different results on different lanes they are all regulated. one tagged node serves for all. i cant think of any example in which there is not traffic lights to go straight but there are to turn left, but maybe in that case the traffic lights node should be placed at the way turning left an example of this but with stop sign: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=41.063759lon=-3.833517zoom=18layers=M you have to open it with an editor (eg JOSM), and it could be checked with sat image: wms:http://www.idee.es/wms/PNOA/PNOA?FORMAT=image/jpegVERSION=1.1.1SERVICE=WMSREQUEST=GetMapLayers=pnoa; s ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] traffic lights
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: Yes. The problem is that an intersection is not a single point. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=van+dyke+and+north+dale+mabry,+tampahl=enll=28.127814,-82.502552spn=0.0007,0.000603sll=28.0725,-82.548614sspn=0.015847,0.01929vpsrc=6t=hz=21 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=28.127645lon=-82.502359zoom=18layers=M Without commenting on the issue at hand - it seems that on the Openstreetmap map the lower tertiary road after the split has its oneway traffic wrong way around. Among a number of other problems, yes. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] traffic lights
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 2:38 PM, sergio sevillano sergiosevillano.m...@gmail.com wrote: i cant think of any example in which there is not traffic lights to go straight but there are to turn left, but maybe in that case the traffic lights node should be placed at the way turning left The only one of these I can think of has been eliminated by new construction. However, I can think of a lot of situations where there is a traffic light for going straight, but a yield sign for turning right. One example was the northwest corner of the intersection I noted above. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] traffic lights
2011/9/5 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: On 09/03/2011 07:30 AM, sergio sevillano wrote: are we mapping reality or for the router ? The question is at what resolution are we mapping? IMHO we should try to map at the highest possible resolution (our db has a ~1cm limit for coordinate precision, our zoom 18 is approx. 1:1500). Lower resolution data can generally be derived from the higher resolution data. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] traffic lights
I have no problem with some people just mapping it has traffic lights and others adding more detail, if they feel a need for it. Most people are never going to need (or have the time/knowledge to enter) more than there are lights here, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the option for more. But if the only knowledge I have is there are lights here, I'd rather be able to mark that than have to fake up some light pole positions or leave it without. Having said that, I do have some questions about marking in detail Should we use different tags for this whole intersections has lights and there are lights in this exact spot. My first instinct is to say yes, so that data users can easily search for one or the other. You could say that any lights not on a way are one, and lights on a way are the other, but what about overhead signals that hang over the centre of the way/intersection? Is there a problem with marking an intersection both ways? Should we mark where the pole is, or where the lights are? Many of our traffic lights hang over the road, with the pole base off to one side. Should we be somehow marking which ways the various signals control? The same pole pole can have signals facing different directions, or just one. Stephen ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] traffic lights
On 09/03/2011 07:30 AM, sergio sevillano wrote: are we mapping reality or for the router ? The question is at what resolution are we mapping? First pass, the roads connect. Second level of detail, the intersection is stoplight controlled. Next level of detail: it has two left turn lanes. Next level of detail: it has four stoplight poles. Next level: the 2nd and 3rd pole have three heads each, two of which have left arrow balls and a bicycle phase ball. After that: a relation to the next signal up for signal synchronization with a design speed of 35mph between them. What's next then? This light is green now with 4 seconds left on the red left arrow phase? Personally I choose to concentrate on blank areas of the map, and features that are more stable (the configuration of poles may change over time, but the intersection will likely remain stop light controlled indefinitely). osm does not restrict anyone from mapping to any level of granularity. - We'd should indeed map to the needs of routers. But that router-aware mapping can reflect reality at a variety of levels of physical and temporal detail. I'd argue that if you're going to place stoplights at their physical location, the/node should still be tagged as a stoplight./ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] traffic lights
El 03/09/2011, a las 12:10, Nathan Edgars II escribió: On 9/3/2011 6:06 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: highway=traffic_signals means this intersection is governed by traffic signals. If you want a tag for there is a physical signal here, use a different one. Using highway=traffic_signals for this will lose important information about what intersections have signals (for example, a router can no longer say turn left at the second signal). Actually this is a bad example, since there are many reasons for having more than one traffic_signals node at an intersection. But when turning onto a trunk from a residential, for example, a router will want to put you out at a traffic signal, and this is much easier when the intersection node is clearly labeled. are we mapping reality or for the router ? the router will read path correctly anyway. as other traffic signs we should map were it affects the traffic (our navigation). give_way, stop, highway exit, maxspeed... should mark where you have to give way, stop, exit the highway or maintain a speed limit not where the signs are. so from this point of view you map the line in the ground where you have to wait, until lights let you continue. this is easy to remember and map. a must for a tagging to work. no matter where you are you can map this if you map the actual sign it will be different depending in what country you are. us has traffic lights above and ahead the crossing but europe exactly where you stop. but the main reason is that you can describe with more precision and more complex crossings. eg. it can be coincident with a pedestrian crossing so you put both at same node. (and the router wont count two penalties) highway=traffic_signals crossing=traffic_signals ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] traffic lights
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 9/3/2011 10:30 AM, sergio sevillano wrote: El 03/09/2011, a las 12:10, Nathan Edgars II escribió: On 9/3/2011 6:06 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: highway=traffic_signals means this intersection is governed by traffic signals. If you want a tag for there is a physical signal here, use a different one. Using highway=traffic_signals for this will lose important information about what intersections have signals (for example, a router can no longer say turn left at the second signal). Actually this is a bad example, since there are many reasons for having more than one traffic_signals node at an intersection. But when turning onto a trunk from a residential, for example, a router will want to put you out at a traffic signal, and this is much easier when the intersection node is clearly labeled. are we mapping reality or for the router ? Both. Reality is that the intersection is controlled by traffic signals. The intersection of the roads is not equal to the intersection of the ways. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Traffic Lights, but only for one direction on a highway that isn't divided
Alright, I've just tagged them as normal traffic lights, but added a note tag with additional info for the future if ever needed. Traffic Lights only control traffic heading out of town to the South Side. There are no traffic lights inbound. To: tagging@openstreetmap.org From: ba...@ursamundi.org Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 11:11:25 -0500 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Traffic Lights, but only for one direction on a highway that isn't divided On 04/13/2011 12:45 AM, James Mast wrote: So does anybody have any suggestions on how to deal with something like this? Here's my example: I'm pretty sure that the traffic signal tag as it currently exists is more concerned with whether or not a signal is present, not whether or not it is always lit, or faces all possible directions. Hawthorne Bridge's center span is a good example of a similar situation. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.513539lon=-122.672664zoom=18layers=M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4CneWT4ymM (also, this video of the bridge crossing makes me wonder...how do you tag two bike lanes in the same direction? And this guy must have crossed after rush hour for traffic to be this light). ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Traffic Lights, but only for one direction on a highway that isn't divided
2011/4/14 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: lanes=2, oneway=yes it's the same as for cars. Otherwise it would be lanes=2, oneway=no Is lanes=* overall number of lanes (in which the example where there's two bicycle lanes would be a total of four lanes) or is it lanes open to all traffic (which would be just two lanes)? lanes is the overall number of lanes that a given way is representing (all directions). If you don't have dedicated ways for the cycleway, it gets more complicated (see the wiki, but probably there is no suggested way to do it). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Traffic Lights, but only for one direction on a highway that isn't divided
On 4/14/2011 1:05 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/4/14 Paul Johnsonba...@ursamundi.org: lanes=2, oneway=yes it's the same as for cars. Otherwise it would be lanes=2, oneway=no Is lanes=* overall number of lanes (in which the example where there's two bicycle lanes would be a total of four lanes) or is it lanes open to all traffic (which would be just two lanes)? lanes is the overall number of lanes that a given way is representing (all directions). If you don't have dedicated ways for the cycleway, it gets more complicated (see the wiki, but probably there is no suggested way to do it). I wouldn't include bike lanes in the total; one says a four-lane road with bike lanes when there are four general-purpose lanes and two bike lanes. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Traffic Lights, but only for one direction on a highway that isn't divided
On 04/14/2011 12:17 PM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 4/14/2011 1:05 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/4/14 Paul Johnsonba...@ursamundi.org: lanes=2, oneway=yes it's the same as for cars. Otherwise it would be lanes=2, oneway=no Is lanes=* overall number of lanes (in which the example where there's two bicycle lanes would be a total of four lanes) or is it lanes open to all traffic (which would be just two lanes)? lanes is the overall number of lanes that a given way is representing (all directions). If you don't have dedicated ways for the cycleway, it gets more complicated (see the wiki, but probably there is no suggested way to do it). I wouldn't include bike lanes in the total; one says a four-lane road with bike lanes when there are four general-purpose lanes and two bike lanes. I should be clear, I'm speaking more generally of any restricted lanes. Say a street has six lanes, a bike lane and a general access lane in one direction, a general access lane, an olympic lane, a taxi/bus lane and a bike lane in the other. Is that six lanes or two? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Traffic Lights, but only for one direction on a highway that isn't divided
Not the same situation here NE2. There are no traffic lights at all installed in either place for the inbound direction, just outbound. With the example you showed, the traffic light there still controls all directions expect for one lane. There are a few of those setups on US-17 North of the Trout River in Jacksonville for Southbound traffic. Anyways, here's the example I'm talking about: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8ll=40.434715,-79.995511spn=0.00296,0.006968z=18layer=ccbll=40.434813,-79.995439panoid=xO1LWVjcCLODqDPmGf0fxwcbp=12,210.31,,0,5.68 Use to go past these lights alot when I was really young since my mom worked in the South Hills. Now, not so much since I don't go to the South Hills as often. Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 02:32:05 -0400 From: nerou...@gmail.com To: tagging@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Tagging] Traffic Lights, but only for one direction on a highway that isn't divided On 4/13/2011 1:45 AM, James Mast wrote: So does anybody have any suggestions on how to deal with something like this? Here's my example: Here in Pittsburgh, when you're coming off I-579 going towards the South Hills across the Liberty Bridge, you encounter two sets of traffic lights (one before you get onto the bridge, and one on the bridge) because of two ramps that dump traffic onto it. The traffic lights are for outbound traffic only, as inbound (to Downtown Pittsburgh) traffic don't have to deal with them. Here are the locations of both sets: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/684666723 http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/684666821. There is precedent for simply treating this as an ordinary traffic light, as sometimes there are lights that never turn red (due to lack of conflicting movements). For example, the rightmost lane here: http://maps.google.com/maps?gl=usll=28.494116,-81.374702spn=0.031494,0.082397z=15layer=ccbll=28.49391,-81.3746panoid=eqI0xGud1eZG-Wa8mhMJbgcbp=12,180.41,,0,3.52 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Traffic Lights, but only for one direction on a highway that isn't divided
On 13 April 2011 17:06, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote: Not the same situation here NE2. There are no traffic lights at all installed in either place for the inbound direction, just outbound. Is the 2 directions of the highway have some kind of barrier down the middle? If you split the ways that way you don't need to twist yourself into knots trying to tag lights in only one directions for a dual direction road. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Traffic Lights, but only for one direction on a highway that isn't divided
Trust me, if the Liberty Bridge had each direction divided, I would have divided it and wouldn't have needed to send in this question. But it isn't. :( It's a controflow-bridge. It's lane configuration on a typical day (starting @ midnight) is (outbound first; inbound second) 2-2;1-3;2-2;3-1;2-2 depending on what time it is (more lanes inbound during morning rush-hour; more lanes outbound in the evening). From: deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 17:36:47 +1000 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Traffic Lights, but only for one direction on a highway that isn't divided To: tagging@openstreetmap.org CC: rickmastfa...@hotmail.com On 13 April 2011 17:06, James Mast rickmastfa...@hotmail.com wrote: Not the same situation here NE2. There are no traffic lights at all installed in either place for the inbound direction, just outbound. Is the 2 directions of the highway have some kind of barrier down the middle? If you split the ways that way you don't need to twist yourself into knots trying to tag lights in only one directions for a dual direction road. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Traffic Lights, but only for one direction on a highway that isn't divided
On 04/13/2011 12:45 AM, James Mast wrote: So does anybody have any suggestions on how to deal with something like this? Here's my example: I'm pretty sure that the traffic signal tag as it currently exists is more concerned with whether or not a signal is present, not whether or not it is always lit, or faces all possible directions. Hawthorne Bridge's center span is a good example of a similar situation. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.513539lon=-122.672664zoom=18layers=M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4CneWT4ymM (also, this video of the bridge crossing makes me wonder...how do you tag two bike lanes in the same direction? And this guy must have crossed after rush hour for traffic to be this light). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Traffic Lights, but only for one direction on a highway that isn't divided
On 04/13/2011 11:25 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/4/13 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4CneWT4ymM nice vid, looks as if the infrastructure planners were focusing on cars and not on bikes ;-) It should be known that the bridge was shipped in from St. Louis and assembled at it's present location in December 1910. It's the first and oldest vertical lift bridge in the world, and has had three major retrofits to make it better withstand earthquakes (it crosses a major faultline), and to better handle the 20,000+ cyclists it carries per day (outnumbering cars and buses; there's been talk of converting the inside lanes to four additional bicycle lanes, two each way, but not sure how far it got before I moved). Given it's age, and the fact the outside lanes were added originally so trucks and buses could cross the bridge (as the original lanes, inside the bridge superstructure, are narrow), the bridge is old enough that it was originally designed around nonmotorized or horse-drawn crossings, and ultimately ended up having the approaches redone to handle increasingly large vehicle traffic. (also, this video of the bridge crossing makes me wonder...how do you tag two bike lanes in the same direction? lanes=2, oneway=yes it's the same as for cars. Otherwise it would be lanes=2, oneway=no Is lanes=* overall number of lanes (in which the example where there's two bicycle lanes would be a total of four lanes) or is it lanes open to all traffic (which would be just two lanes)? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
