Am 18.09.2014 16:07, schrieb Lukas Sommer: > > > So far, highway=traffic_signal is only defined for nodes and there are > only few ways and fewer relations. > > > Correct. > > > > Also in favour of separation I would prefer to use junction=* with > name=* and only highway=traffic_signal with name if it is only a single > light (e.g. the case with a named junction and different separate names > for the lights) > > This way we could add an additional junction=* to the nodes with named > traffic_signal and once all lights are tagged separately only use > junction=* for ways. > Additionally we have a better hint for the renderer what to render and > diversify between a named junction and single named traffic_signals. > > cu fly >
Sorry, was kind of confusing, try again: 1. simple solution with only one node junction=yes/traffic_signal/* highway=traffic_signal (if the junction has lights) name=* 2. area junction=yes/traffic_signal/* name=* Maybe also highway=junction [1] could be used. Renderer could use junction=* to determine the needed icon and we stay consistant with the use of traffic_signals. This makes detailed tagging possible while adding the information for renderers to > Hm, I am not sure if I understand you correctly. You want to use > junction=yes not on nodes anymore, but only on areas – and change the > currently existing cases in OSM? No, no problem with junction=* on nodes but in long term only needed for rare situations and low detailed mapping > If so, I would disagree here. We have a yet existing tagging that works > well for both – named junctions and names traffic signals – as long as > this are simple junctions like > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Junction_yes_example_1.png My > proposal keeps the existing tagging for simple junctions – and extends > it also to complex junctions. I am not convinced in changing the current > tagging practice for simple junctions and require changing a lot of yet > existing data in OSM. Currently I do not know of any situation where we > have at the same place on the ground a different junction name and a > different traffic signal name. It seems to me a barely theoretical > problem. Maybe that does not mean that such a situation is impossible to > exist. However, we should create our tagging scheme starting from the > situation on the ground, and this seems to be either junction names or > traffic signal names, but not both things at the same time. Replace an > existing simple practice with a new complicate practice just to solve a > problem that does probably not exist on the ground? Well, I just followed this thread: >>> Am 16.09.2014 16:49, schrieb Satoshi IIDA: >>>> 2014-09-16 23:38 GMT+09:00 fly <[email protected]>: >>>>> The name belongs to the junction and not to the traffic_signal, >>>>> am I wrong ? >>>> In Japan, Hokkaido region, there is 4 traffic_signals on 1 >>>> junction. >>>> Each traffic_signals and 1 junction has different name. >>>> >>>> Indeed it is rare case. >>>> But I think we need Lukas's idea to support it. > However, I think it is nevertheless a good idea to think about this > case. I would propose to leave the existing tagging for simple > intersections as it is (with tagging on a node). Moreover, for the rare > case that we have a junction and a traffic signal with different names, > one of them could be represented by an area around the other one (and > same thing on complex junctions/traffic signal systems). Thus, we keep a > door open to tag two different names, just for the case that sometime we > really need it. Nevertheless, we do not break compatibility with the > current practice, and we do not make things unnecessarily complicate for > the real-world cases. Ok, here we are common. Hope my thoughts are better understandable this time. Cheers fly _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
