Re: [OSM-talk-be] tags for prohibitory road signs in Belgium

For me this is a case of not mapping for the renderer. Vehicle=no is what the sign means, so is what should be used. If you look at what the wiki says for access=no: "The access =no tag indicates that the object is not to be used by the general

Re: [OSM-talk-be] tags for prohibitory road signs in Belgium

Op zaterdag 12 oktober 2019 21:01:06 CEST schreef s8evq : >On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 19:24:35 + (UTC), Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be > wrote: > >Thanks Stijn for taking the time to comment. > >> - An interesting change is the one from access=no/destination to >> vehicle=no/destination

Re: [OSM-talk-be] tags for prohibitory road signs in Belgium

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 19:24:35 + (UTC), Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be wrote: Thanks Stijn for taking the time to comment. > - An interesting change is the one from access=no/destination to > vehicle=no/destination for the > C5-sign, which I support, because it's more correct. But a

Re: [OSM-talk-be] tags for prohibitory road signs in Belgium

On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 9:27 PM Stijn Rombauts via Talk-be wrote: > - A general remark that could be added: never follow the traffic signs > blindly when adding (access) tags: in some local authorities the one who has > to decide about traffic signs doesn't seem to know which sign to use where.

Re: [OSM-talk-be] tags for prohibitory road signs in Belgium

Hi, Some comments: - An interesting change is the one from access=no/destination to vehicle=no/destination for the C5-sign, which I support, because it's more correct. But a disadvantage is that e.g. access=no/destination shows on the map, but vehicle=no/destination not. Would the proposal to