Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

2017-03-31 Thread Paul Johnson
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 7:01 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On 03/30/2017 07:43 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Kevin Kenny > > wrote: >> >> >> Obviously, if we are using

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

2017-03-30 Thread Kevin Kenny
On 03/30/2017 07:43 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Kevin Kenny > wrote: Obviously, if we are using the node for other purposes, we may need to disambiguate with stop:direction=* or

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

2017-03-30 Thread Paul Johnson
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Obviously, if we are using the node for other purposes, we may need to > disambiguate with stop:direction=* or give_way:direction=*, just as we do > with other ambiguously-named tags. > > I'm having a hard time

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

2017-03-28 Thread Marc Gemis
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 9:05 AM, <0174 wrote: > Hi Marc, > > I sometimes have to change the direction of a way when merging two of them > and when they are oriented in the opposite directions. I.e. when two parts > of the same road are mapped and I map the part in between, I

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

2017-03-28 Thread <0174
Hi Marc, I sometimes have to change the direction of a way when merging two of them and when they are oriented in the opposite directions. I.e. when two parts of the same road are mapped and I map the part in between, I merge all of them when there's no reason not to. I don't know if it's

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

2017-03-28 Thread Marc Gemis
What are good reasons to change the direction of a way ? Oneway comes to mind, but is split way at stop sign, revert one arriving way, change the oneway tag of tag a realistic scenario ? So you end up with a oneway way that becomes a two-way road at the stop sign. Are there other reasons to revert

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

2017-03-27 Thread Georg Feddern
Am 27.03.2017 um 17:29 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2017-03-27 16:34 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis >: In the case you have added e.g. a stop sign on the way. A second mapper comes in, splits the way on the stop sign, reverts the direction

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

2017-03-27 Thread Jean-Marc Liotier
(Sent again, this time without all the cc: which probably are the cause of the previous attempt being held in the listserv's spam filters... After eleven hours I guess it won't be delivered to the list so I resend) On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 19:08:13 +0100 yo paseopor wrote: > > I

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

2017-03-27 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2017-03-27 16:34 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis : > In the case you have added e.g. a stop sign on the way. A second > mapper comes in, splits the way on the stop sign, reverts the > direction of one of the spit parts. Now the node is at the end of 2 > ways with different direction

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

2017-03-27 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:34 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Kevin Kenny > wrote: > > I'm having a hard time picturing any case where this couldn't work. > > In the case you have added e.g. a stop sign on the way. A

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

2017-03-27 Thread Marc Gemis
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 4:21 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > I'm having a hard time picturing any case where this couldn't work. In the case you have added e.g. a stop sign on the way. A second mapper comes in, splits the way on the stop sign, reverts the direction of one

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

2017-03-27 Thread Kevin Kenny
I still think that for the overwhelming majority of STOP and YIELD (give_way) signs, the tagging scheme of a node either on the intersection or near the intersection on the approaching way makes sense. And in fact, I think that a fairly simple rule of interpretation actually answers those who

Re: [Tagging] Traffic sign relevant direction: relation type:enforcement vs. direction=* vs. traffic_signals:direction=*

2017-03-27 Thread Jean-Marc Liotier
On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 14:08:55 +0200 Topographe Fou wrote: > > When you say direction=forward I assume it is forward/backward and > not other direction values. Yes. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org