Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency Traffic Signals
> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:06:48 -0500 > From: nerou...@gmail.com > To: tagging@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency Traffic Signals > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:33 AM, James Mast > wrote: > > I've created a proposal for Emergency Traffic Signals, which are typically > > found in front of fire stations and highway tunnels at > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Emergency_Traffic_Signals > > I've already been using highway=traffic_signals > traffic_signals=emergency (as well as traffic_signals=blinker for a > single-ball blinker and traffic_signals=blink_mode for a standard > signal that's in permanent blink mode), so I agree with that part. No > comment on emergency=*, and I oppose treating bridge/tunnel signals > the same as those in front of fire stations. > Then what would you suggest for the tunnel ones NE2? And what do you think of "traffic_signals:emergency=yes" for the base tag instead? Lulu-Ann made this suggestion on the main "highway=traffic_signals" page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals&curid=17171&diff=587033&oldid=585035). James ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency Traffic Signals
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > I've already been using highway=traffic_signals > traffic_signals=emergency (as well as traffic_signals=blinker for a > single-ball blinker and traffic_signals=blink_mode for a standard > signal that's in permanent blink mode), so I agree with that part. No > comment on emergency=*, and I oppose treating bridge/tunnel signals > the same as those in front of fire stations. I agree with this approach. I see it as: Is this entity fundamentally a traffic signal, or is it fundamentally emergency-related equipment? I say it's the former. Alternatively: is it better if a renderer shows all traffic_signals the same (failing to distinguish emergency ones), or all emergency things the same (failing to distinguish traffic signals from, say, fire extinguishers). Again, I say the former. Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency Traffic Signals
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 8:20 PM, James Mast wrote: > Then what would you suggest for the tunnel ones NE2? I'm not sure. > > And what do you think of "traffic_signals:emergency=yes" for the base tag > instead? Lulu-Ann made this suggestion on the main > "highway=traffic_signals" page > (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tag:highway%3Dtraffic_signals&curid=17171&diff=587033&oldid=585035). What would be the benefit of that? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate
Based on feedback, I've modified http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sluice_gate > -Original Message- > From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:tagging- > boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Paul Norman > Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2011 7:36 PM > To: 'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools' > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate > > > From: Steve Bennett > > > > On 5/01/2011 3:18 PM, John Smith wrote: > > > Perhaps a more generic approach would work, eg waterway=flow_control > > > flow_control=weir|sluice_gate|flood_gate|spillway_gate| > > Yeah something like that would be reasonable. What I'd like to see a > > lot more of is planning ahead: coming up with a scheme into which all > > future subtags can be slotted. It's very hard to change a tag once > > it's become popular. So perhaps: > > > > waterway=dam (a wall with water on one side) waterway=weir (a wall > > with water flowing over the top) waterway=flow_control (an opening > > through which water sometimes flows). > > flow_control=sluice_gate|flood_gate|spillway_gate|lock_gate... > > > > Then we get people who know this stuff to try and find exceptions that > > don't fit into the above scheme, and redesign it. > > > > I've been looking into this. How does this sound? > waterway=dam and waterway=weir remain unchanged. > > waterway=flow_control - a device for controlling the flow of water > > flow_control=sluice_gate|discharge|... > > sluice_gate: a sluice gate. > > discharge: A discharge point like > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Howell-Bunger_valve.jpg > > The question is, what else would go there? Flood gates don't belong > there - that's the *usage* of the gate, not the *type* of gate. > > > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency Traffic Signals
On 01/13/2011 10:06 AM, Nathan Edgars II wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 12:33 AM, James Mast > wrote: >> I've created a proposal for Emergency Traffic Signals, which are typically >> found in front of fire stations and highway tunnels at >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Emergency_Traffic_Signals > > I've already been using highway=traffic_signals > traffic_signals=emergency (as well as traffic_signals=blinker for a > single-ball blinker and traffic_signals=blink_mode for a standard > signal that's in permanent blink mode), so I agree with that part. No > comment on emergency=*, and I oppose treating bridge/tunnel signals > the same as those in front of fire stations. Tagging single-aspect signals seems excessive overkill, given the propensity of single aspect signals and their standard usage emphasizing other traffic control devices (particularly signals that are permanently flashing yellow). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Emergency Traffic Signals
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 2:23 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: > Tagging single-aspect signals seems excessive overkill, given the > propensity of single aspect signals and their standard usage emphasizing > other traffic control devices (particularly signals that are permanently > flashing yellow). Maybe they don't have overhead blinkers in states that begin with O, but around here there are a couple two- or four-way stops with single-ball signals suspended from wires. The approaches that stop have a permanently blinking red, and the others have a yellow. These are useful to mark for navigation if nothing else. Here's an example (four-way stop so they're all red): http://maps.google.com/maps?sll=28.727588,-81.558718&sspn=0.003961,0.0103&ll=28.556746,-81.36035&spn=0.007897,0.020599&t=k&z=17&layer=c&cbll=28.556746,-81.36035&panoid=W8eiC4kISDr3eayvFK8Hvg&cbp=12,289.76,,0,-5.36 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
