Been shot down already a year or two ago that I know of. I still think defaults per administrative area/boundary with inverse hierarchical nesting (more local overrides less local) makes a lot of sense.
Example 1: The default speed limit assumption for a city take precedence over that of a state. And those for a state take precedence over that of a nation. Specific signed based tagging on a way is the "most local” of course and overrides any default based on administrative boundaries. Example 2: Set default for “right turn on red after stop” to true for all U.S. But then set default for NYC to false. (However “right turn on red” tag semantics are eventually defined. > On Jul 2, 2016, at 9:17 AM, Colin Smale <[email protected]> wrote: > > One of these days someone will introduce the concept of defaults per > territory. My prediction is that this suggestion will either get mercilessly > shot down in flames, or be quietly accepted, probably depending on who > suggests it. > > > //colin > > On 2016-07-02 18:06, Johnparis wrote: > >> Ooh, I think Martin's suggestion would become a MAJOR project. >> >> If I recall correctly, "right turn permitted on red after stop" is the >> traffic law in the entire United States with the sole exception of New York >> City. (Wikipedia says this has been the case since late 1978.) >> >> Are you seriously suggesting that virtually every single traffic signal in >> the United States be tagged with "right turn permitted on red after stop" >> instead of tagging the few with "no turn on red"? How does this comport with >> the notion of tagging what you see -- the only signs you'll see in the USA >> are "no turn on red" (with the exception of NYC). >> >> John >> >> >> Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > Message: 2 >> > Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 17:06:59 +0200 >> > From: Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> >> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" >> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging? >> > Message-ID: <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> >> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> > >> > >> > >> > sent from a phone >> > >> > > Il giorno 02 lug 2016, alle ore 16:55, Nathan Wessel >> > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> ha >> > > critto: >> > > >> > > >> > > Who is right here? Should I report this as a bug and change the wiki to >> > > allow turns on ^no_.*" relations as standard or should the tagging be >> > > changed? And how? >> > > >> > >> > >> > right turn on red is something that isn't generally allowed, some >> > countries do, some do if additional signs are posted. I'd suggest to >> > explicitly tag the positive case (right turn on red is allowed), rather >> > than assuming a default of yes and tag the negative cases. >> > >> > cheers, >> > Martin >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>_______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
