I see. Thanks for your answers. Okay, now it's clearer to me why highway=traffic_signals is used sometimes together with crossing=traffic_signals. I will change the proposal to only add the new traffic_signals=*-value and then get in touch again.
Thanks.
--
Lukas
Gesendet: Montag, 13. April 2020 um 20:16 Uhr
Von: "Mark Wagner" <[email protected]>
An: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand
Von: "Mark Wagner" <[email protected]>
An: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand
On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 18:42:42 +0200
[email protected] wrote:
> The second goal my proposal wants to message is to deprecate tagging
> "crossing=traffic_signals" together with "highway=traffic_signals" on
> the same node. Especially if you're saying this is a full crossing
> mapped. It breaks the highway=crossing - tagging scheme we use for
> all other types of crossing (except crossing=no). Some mappers
> use "crossing=traffic_signals" together with
> "highway=traffic_signals" on the same node als a shortcut for "lane
> traffic signal" and "foot traffic signal" because it is rendered as
> two traffic signals in JOSM. Or for mapping traffic signals for
> crossing cyclists. But I think in every case it is better to use two
> different (nearby) nodes for that. What do you think about it?
I think you should split it up into two proposals.
"highway=traffic_signals;crossing=traffic_signals" is so widely used
there's not a chance you'll get agreement to forbid it. If you tie
your proposed "traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand" tagging to it, all
that will happen is that "traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand" will be
rejected as well.
--
Mark
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[email protected] wrote:
> The second goal my proposal wants to message is to deprecate tagging
> "crossing=traffic_signals" together with "highway=traffic_signals" on
> the same node. Especially if you're saying this is a full crossing
> mapped. It breaks the highway=crossing - tagging scheme we use for
> all other types of crossing (except crossing=no). Some mappers
> use "crossing=traffic_signals" together with
> "highway=traffic_signals" on the same node als a shortcut for "lane
> traffic signal" and "foot traffic signal" because it is rendered as
> two traffic signals in JOSM. Or for mapping traffic signals for
> crossing cyclists. But I think in every case it is better to use two
> different (nearby) nodes for that. What do you think about it?
I think you should split it up into two proposals.
"highway=traffic_signals;crossing=traffic_signals" is so widely used
there's not a chance you'll get agreement to forbid it. If you tie
your proposed "traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand" tagging to it, all
that will happen is that "traffic_signals=crossing_on_demand" will be
rejected as well.
--
Mark
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
