I tried it a bit, and I do have some concerns with both the mapping plugin and the style JOSM uses.
First, I think that a traffic sign should only have tags like traffic_sign=BE:C21[7] and no tags like maxweight=7 Those legal implications of traffic signs should stay on way segments IMO. So the stylesheet should try to recognise all traffic sign codes. Now you can tag something like traffic_sign=BE:A1a + maxweight=7, and JOSM will display a maxweight sign. Which isn't good. Splitting the tags completely makes it possible to have some redundancy, and to check one tagset against the other. Next to that, when we need to tag traffic signs, I would also like a way to set the direction of a sign easily, and to be able to view the direction easily. Certainly on physically split highways, some signs tend to be in the middle of the road, so it's unclear how they're facing. At crossings it can also be very ambiguous. We shouldn't have to fill in an angle by hand, but with some hotkey+mouse action, JOSM could generate the right angle (and maybe rotate the sign like it does for turn restrictions). Then I've always had problem with tagging variable speed limits (f.e. those dynamic zone-30 signs). When mapping signs, there should be a clear difference between the variable sign and the fixed sign, and that setting should also apply to the tags on the way segments. Since we're tagging directions on road pieces too, allowing direction signs (f.e. F29) should also be possible. And as a final general comment, when it comes to sub-signs and direction signs, there are many free texts possible. This should also be made possible next to the few defaults. Now, wrt the specific Belgian case, I've also seen a few mistakes, though not that many, since the plugin isn't very usable before solving the above. C9 is translated to moped=no on the wiki, while it's mofa=no on the plugin. I know the difference is very fuzzy (and the relation to class A and B too), but we should at least use a uniform tagging. C23 is translated to goods=no on the wiki, and hgv=no on the plugin, again, the difference is rather fuzzy. C24a and C24b are both tagged as hazmat=no on the plugin, again a difference with the wiki, and I'm not sure what the hazmat_ADR_tunnel sign is. Sign combinations (like C5+C7) also aren't available in the plugin. No-stopping signs are missing from the plugin, and no-parking signs have no tags attached (parking:lanes:right=no would be the default tag I guess). The F1 sign (without buildings background) is deprecated and all need to be replaced against June 1st (see http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20141120_01386508 as example), I don't think the plugin will be production-ready against that time. So I don't think it's worth to include the sign (at least not with that graphic). F9 should be translated to motorroad=yes instead of motorway=yes The F17 sign contains some strange defaults (conditional access restrictions?) I didn't really check the validity of sub-signs, as I've often found sub-signs very confusing in real life. Regards, Sander 2015-02-09 1:15 GMT+01:00 Jo <winfi...@gmail.com>: > All they are good for is mark what is the 'ground truth'. Thereby showing, > where the tags the ways got as a result, came from. > > For your noexit example. One would set > > traffic_sign=F45 exactly where the signpost is located. In that case the > job is done. No need to tag a way (anymore. As far as I am concerned, this > was different before, but then I'm probably one of those who misunderstood > the noexit=yes tag). > > Now the way will only be connected on one end and the F45 or F45b confirms > that that is correct. > > In case the validator complains about the loose node being very near to > another highway, add noexit=yes on that node. noexit=yes now became a tag > to make the validator shut up. > > > So all the traffic_sign does, is create a redundant connection between > what's on the ground and how it affects the way (and sometimes a node > (traffic_calming) or a relation (turn_restriction)). > > Nothing more, nothing less. > > This is why they started doing it in Finland: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Finland:Traffic_signs > > Now I'm not saying we have to try and add all of them, but I do want to > make it possible and conveniently easy to add them (and their effects). > > Jo > > 2015-02-09 0:26 GMT+01:00 André Pirard <a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com>: > >> On 2015-02-07 00:39, Jo wrote : >> >> 2015-02-07 0:09 GMT+01:00 André Pirard <a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com>: >> >>> On 2015-02-05 22:57, Jo wrote : >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Over the past days, I adapted the data file for the road sign plugin >>> for Belgium. >>> >>> I'd like to ask you to test it. >>> >>> Install the plugin the usual way and select something. Look at the top >>> right corner of the tags pane on the right. A little icon was added there, >>> press it and choose BE. >>> >>> Now it becomes easy to tag traffic signs and their effects on the ways >>> they apply to. I'm going to ask the developers for some improvements, but >>> it is functional already. >>> >>> >>> Regarding tests, it's surprising. I click on the little icon but I see >>> no "BE to choose". >>> If I click Setting, I see several countries but not Belgium. >>> >>> >> Call it wishful thinking, but what I want that plugin to do is the >> following: >> >> 1. add the corresponding tags on the selected ways, which the sign >> affects >> 2. add BE:A1b or something of the kind on a node next to the way. This >> node is placed where the actual sign is. >> >> It now becomes possible to see where the tags on the way came from, call >> it a source, call it fuzzy, if that makes you feel better. I call it >> redundancy and I don't see a problem with that. >> >> I need to see that in action, but, as I told you I don't see any >> Belgian selection. >> I'm running 7995. >> >> What I'm fearing with traffic signs is what happened and continues to >> happen with noexit=yes. >> noexit=yes does not indicate that one cannot exit but that a road >> continuity gap that prevents passing is intentional. >> It is made to warn QA tools that there's no error and maybe map browsers >> to look at that location carefully. >> But contributors started to use it otherwise. >> They tagged it at plain dead ends just as totally uselessly as tagging >> noexit=no in the middle of every street. >> Or, as I removed some, at junctions with the obvious intention to >> indicate a no passing condition on one of the streets, but without showing >> which of the streets and even less how far, where in that street. >> Worse, they tagged it on ways, not realizing that a node cannot be >> identified by identifying a way (which end?). >> Worse, some of them believed that it was made to tag the No Exit signal >> (F45). >> Worse, someone silently modified the Belgian Wiki >> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Belgium#F45> to >> instruct the Belgian community to do that F45 tagging. >> Without warning, without discussion. No reaction from anyone. I removed >> that. >> >> What I'm thinking is that the noexit=yes page is very easy to understand >> and that if it is misunderstood so badly, there is a high risk that the >> traffic_sign page which is far more complicated will be misunderstood even >> more. >> For one thing, that page says "Traffic signs give instructions or provide >> information to road users". >> That's true, but it forgets to say "The other tags provide instructions >> to GPSes so that they can do the routing and give instructions or provide >> information to road users". >> The risk is to use only traffic signs and to have GPSes work very badly. >> >> Please note that I am not discussing the plugin but the habits that >> starting to use road signs can induce. >> In fact, I wonder what road signs are useful for if the conventional tags >> do the same better and more fully. >> >> Cheers >> >> André. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-be mailing list >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
