On Sep 22, 2014, at 6:48 AM, Lukas Sommer <sommer...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > It should be pretty trivial to have the area share nodes with the highway 
> > ways where the signals would normally be mapped.
> > Like drawing a square around a tic-tac-toe board, but the shared nodes are 
> > only on one side at a time.
> Here, I strongly disagree. The defination on the proposal page is clear: We 
> do not want to have tags on the shared nodes. Only this way it is clear what 
> is within the area, and what is without. We should not give up this 
> possiblility. And your idea actually would give up this possiblilty.

No tags on the shared nodes - just shared nodes. 

> Next problem with your idea: You need to have shared nodes not only for 
> incoming, but also for the outgoing oneways. And mostly there is no real 
> traffic signal _after_ you have passed a crossroad. Nevertheless you have 
> there a node. So later you won’t be able to know if on a specific node there 
> is really a traffic signal or not.

would the intersecting roads still have a shared  (untagged) node in the 
> We don’t have any need to represent the individual traffic signals in the 
> border. It would make the usage far to complicate. And you would not gain 
> anything. If you want to mark individual traffic signals, use the existing 
> tagging. But don’t invent a new one – don’t make it unnecessarily complicate!

I thought the shared nodes with the areas would easily represent what the 
signal_area is affecting, and when it is affecting it (before entering the 

Made a test to show you what I was thinking. 

> > Also, I think It could also share nodes with the walkways and other 
> > pedestrian oriented ways, as the signal would be part of their routing as 
> > well.

Yea - at the intersection where the decision to change routes is made. 
> Here, I agree. I assumed that people would do so automatically, but I’ll also 
> add it on the wiki page.
> Lukas Sommer

- Javbw
Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to