On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:26 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote: > really I don't see the point of this discussion anymore: I already > question the benefit of tagged stop signs in general, as a stop sign > itself requires very few seconds of travel time, while a unregulated > crossing with a lot of traffic from the right might require a lot > more, it all depends merely on traffic density (which itself is quite > dependent on the time).
The most important thing is who has right-of-way; those streets that do are usually easier to drive along and a router should prefer them. A stop sign is more annoying than a yield (give way) sign, and many jurisdictions badly overuse stop signs to discourage connectivity/cut-through traffic. Routers of cars and bicycles should prefer streets where you don't have to stop every block (this is especially important for cycling because it's usually more pleasant to ride along a smooth residential street than a six-lane highway, but an overload of stop signs may negate any advantage). I'm not sure that direction of the stop sign matters much. It's extremely improbable that any given street will have a bunch of stop signs in one direction but none in the other. So a router simply needs to add a small penalty for each stop sign node passed through. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
