Just want to let you know that in NL we have 3 kind of cycle ways <http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~peewee32/traffic_sign/traffic_sign.htm?map=cycleways&zoom=16&lat=52.1317&lon=5.37637&layers=B000FFFFFFFFFTTTTTTFFFFFFFF>. It is quite common to tag these ways with a traffic_sign in order to differentiate. This is not only unambiguous but it also makes things easy to change in the OSM database in case legislation changes. For example.. if a max speed is introduced in 1 of the 3 types it is easyly added in OSM. Something that would but a lot more work if the signs were only nodes.
Cheers PeeWee32 2015-11-04 11:25 GMT+01:00 Gerd Petermann <[email protected]>: > > Hi Martin, > > > I think you are mixing two things now. I talked about the "As part of a > way" part, not the "On a way or area" part, > > which looks even more weird to me. > > > Besides that: Yes, I also think that we should map a traffic_sign as a > node with the position of the sign. > > > Gerd > > ------------------------------ > *Von:* Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> > *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 4. November 2015 11:11 > *An:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > *Betreff:* Re: [Tagging] traffic_sign:forward=* > > > 2015-11-04 7:17 GMT+01:00 Georg Feddern <[email protected]>: > >> If you read (and use) _only_ traffic_sign:forward - I suppose you read >> only the german wiki page and then I understand your problem, because that >> can not work in all cases. >> If you read the english wiki page, you may understand the intention >> better - as there is also a traffic_sign:backward variant mentioned. >> >> It shall work as in reality and as "computered" in the human mind: >> Transform the information from the sign (node) to the way in the relevant >> direction - with all possibilities, but even all obstacles also ... >> >> I do not support this "node on way" strategy - I use only the node beside >> way as tagging for the sign itself - and "always on the right side" ;-) - >> at least here in Germany. >> > > > > Looks as if we agree that traffic signs are point objects at the side of a > road, not linear stuff on a road. It doesn't make sense to have a traffic > sign on a long part of a road, it is a point but can have effect for a > linear piece of road (but then, it is not the traffic sign but the effect > you want to map). > > Browsing the history of the page, I have found out that the idea of adding > the key to a way is to collect a list of traffic signs that are valid for > this way. IMHO this doesn't make a lot of sense, because the idea of > storing the traffic signs was that of being able to verify actual tagging > on the way (e.g. see from where to where a maxspeed is valid and where it > changes for sure), but this idea is put from the top to the bottom if you > repeat the actual effects (which normally do have their own tags, e.g. > maxspeed, overtaking, access-tags, etc.) with the traffic sign tag. > > I propose to at least discourage the use of the traffic_sign key on ways, > if not deprecate. > > Cheers, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > -- Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap <http://www.openstreetmap.org>.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
