sent from a phone
> On 15. Oct 2018, at 00:52, yo paseopor wrote:
>
> I think traffic sign specific tags (traffic_sign, traffic_sign:direction (or
> backward/forward subkeys) , traffic_sign:side (or side:) would never be used
> as a tags for the ways.
> -I'm agree with you in that.
great
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 1:30 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
>
> to me there is no point in mapping traffic signs on ways. Traffic signs
> are punctual items, their supposed effect (our interpretation what they
> imply for which way) is already mapped with established tags on the way. It
> is
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 1:05 AM Colin Smale wrote:
> I am not saying these cases are impossible, only that they have to be
> accommodated, preferably as uniformly as possible. It is not intended as
> criticism, but as a critical test of fitness for purpose. If the tagging
> scheme can't handle
That doesn't mean no decision can never be taken. Just that as there is no way
to enforce any, it is necessary to discuss it here and elsewhere to seek
consensus.
It is necessarily slower than the time for a commit to be merged into iD or a
busy weekend retagging. Such a change can take month.
sent from a phone
> On 10. Oct 2018, at 23:49, yo paseopor wrote:
>
> So this list is about the meaning but has no power or decision about how to
> apply the decisions about we write here?
> Is it correct?
yes, I would see it like this, tagging ml has no power or decision on map data,
>
> Tagging is for discussing the development and meaning of tags.
>
So this list is about the meaning but has no power or decision about how to
apply the decisions about we write here?
Is it correct?
yopaseopor
___
Tagging mailing list
sent from a phone
> On 10. Oct 2018, at 21:22, yo paseopor wrote:
>
> But I have to say I'm sorry for the misunderstanding of what a consensus is
> in a tagging list... but What is a consensus in this list?
actually the automated edits (which explicitly includes search and replace with
I will explain the things from my point of view.
There was a discussion about direction in traffic signs because a problem
in major online editor iD.
32 messages that starts Fri, Sep 28, 4:52 AM (12 days ago) and finnish Oct
3, 2018, 12:04 AM (7 days ago) . Five days of discussion.
-In the
sent from a phone
> On 9. Oct 2018, at 23:03, yo paseopor wrote:
>
> for this reason the solution of tag the traffic signs ON the way it's the
> best way to do it. Traffic signs are relative to their ways (because if the
> way does not exist the existance of traffic sign is non-sense). Ways
I am not saying these cases are impossible, only that they have to be
accommodated, preferably as uniformly as possible. It is not intended as
criticism, but as a critical test of fitness for purpose. If the tagging
scheme can't handle these real-world situations, it's not ready for
go-live yet.
This whole "trying to cram everything including direction and how it
relates to everything into a node" idea is fundamentally hosed. Also
literally why relations are a thing that exist.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 5:26 PM yo paseopor wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:37 PM Tobias Knerr wrote:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018, 16:05 yo paseopor wrote:
> for this reason the solution of tag the traffic signs ON the way it's the
> best way to do it. Traffic signs are relative to their ways (because if the
> way does not exist the existance of traffic sign is non-sense). Ways have
> direction, also
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:16 PM Colin Smale wrote:
> I can think of a couple of non-trivial cases which will need to be handled:
>
> 1) multiple signs on a single post
>
As Finnish people do we can add subkey :2 :3 :4... (European regulations
does nit recommend more than 3 traffic_signs
for this reason the solution of tag the traffic signs ON the way it's the
best way to do it. Traffic signs are relative to their ways (because if the
way does not exist the existance of traffic sign is non-sense). Ways have
direction, also their nodes can have this reference.
Relations are
Hi,
On 10/09/2018 05:42 PM, yo paseopor wrote:
> It is not the first attempt to do that. Last days, with iD
> implementation and my message I have think it was the solution. Also I
> have waited some days and communicate to this list my intentions to
> adopt the proposed iD scheme. But when I
On 09.10.2018 17:42, yo paseopor wrote:
> So Please , let's talk about it. What will be the correct way to tag a
> traffic sign?
How about the existing tagging scheme for traffic signs on nodes,
documented at https://wiki.osm.org/Key:traffic_sign ?
To sum it up:
- Place a node for the traffic
I can think of a couple of non-trivial cases which will need to be
handled:
1) multiple signs on a single post
2) signs with a dependent (qualifier) sign, such as "except for buses"
3) one or more signs on a larger panel - too large to represent as a
node
4) signs applying only to certain
Why not map traffic signs the way enforcement devices are currently mapped
in relations? That's more foolproof than relying on nodes having nonextant
direction, especially when most traffic signs aren't even members of ways.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018, 10:46 yo paseopor wrote:
>
> I want to start the
I want to start the mother of all discussions about traffic signs
It is not the first attempt to do that. Last days, with iD implementation
and my message I have think it was the solution. Also I have waited some
days and communicate to this list my intentions to adopt the proposed iD
scheme. But
19 matches
Mail list logo
