2011/9/6 Bryce Nesbitt <[email protected]>: > In the case of traffic lights if the intersection node is marked as having > the proper control (e.g. none, stop light, stop sign, yield, TOUCAN, > PELICAN, PUFFIN, Pegasus, etc), then additional detail is harmless. A > future simple router can route. A future complex router can process the > additional relations and details, when and if they gain sufficient traction.
+1 > Thus I encourage people not to remove the control type from the intersection > node, but rather supplement it. Future rendering software can suppress the > intersection node's rendering if more detailed information is available. +1, I agree with others here that it seems as if we needed different tags for different abstraction levels of traffic lights: a simple one which states "this crossing is controlled by traffic lights" and more complex ones for the details. The established tag highway=traffic_signals is currently used in both ways and the page states "A traffic signal for regulating circulation." but also "As of now, there is no well established convention.". For complex sets there is a proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Set_of_Traffic_Signals from 2008 which not only is marked as abandoned but actually seems to be so ( used only 48 times). The discussion references http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Junctions and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Junction but actually junction is used in nearly all cases for roundabouts and not with the other values from the proposal. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
