@Javbw Indeed the problem of the traffic signal system names is still
not solved.However I would keep this separate. Lukas Schaus wants to
represent traffic signal phases (and uses – also in the new proposal –
more than one relation per traffic signal system). The traffic signal
system and its name are a different topics, and I would not merge them
in the same proposal.
In the Tagging_for_complex_junctions_or_traffic_signals_that_are_named
propsal, the part of the area was a little bit disputed for the case
of the traffic signal systems. Various people suggested that a
relation would be better for traffic signal systems. Currently, I tend
to come up with a proposal for a relation for traffic signal system
names – which would not interfer with Lukas Schaus’ proposal. @Javbw
Do you have some feedback from the japanese community? What do they
think about the usage of a relation?
Lukas Sommer
2015-02-03 2:30 GMT+00:00 johnw :
>>
>> I did a major update on my proposal regarding the mapping of traffic signals.
>
> As per the talk pageI’d like you to consider including (and documenting in
> the proposal) rendering the name=* of the “signal” in this situation, as the
> relation encompasses the entire set of signals - which in Japan, are named,
> and represented with a singleTraffic_signals icon. Even without a name, the
> single icon per complex intersection is preferred, as a signal icon at an
> intersection - even a complex one, is the proper rendering for using relative
> direction and counting “3 signals down is my business”, and other commonly
> used relative directions in places with no street addressing system.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Traffic_Signals#rendering_traffic_signals_area_question
>
> thanks, Javbw
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
