(this is a follow-up post to my original at
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2013-January/010086.html and
the responses thereto)
Thanks for the input on this topic earlier this month. I'm in agreement with
those who feel that the information is too volatile and potentially out of date
to apply to the roadway itself. I think it would be best to just document the
physical artifact which exists aside the road. Thus, I'd suggest to myself and
others the use of
...information=adopt-a-highway
...sign=yes
...organisation={name of organisation}
...source (on changeset or object)=survey <= really should be obligatory
...source:date (on changeset or object)={date of survey}
Along with this would be a wiki page which describes the adopt-a-highway
information and implications of the positioning of the sign. In most cases,
the sign appears on the roadside of the carriageway to which is applies. Now,
the signs do typically appear in pairs, with the positioning of the pair
indicating the length of roadway to which the adopt-a-highway applies.
However, when driving, you typically only see one of the pair; regular driving
along a route can lead to awareness of the second position.
I think that creating a sign object in this way allows physical verification of
the information presented to motorists without complicating highway tagging or
creating an implication which would turn out to be incorrect about the actual
state of affairs.
--ceyockey
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
