On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 12:07:43PM +0200, Colin Smale wrote: > All this data is aimed at routing and navigation, not being a source of > detail for the use of judges.
sure, routing is the main aim. So how can we do that? variant 1 - current approach: #1 mapper sees a sign on ground #2 mapper guesses how to possibly translate this "no tricycles with more than two zombies on board" sign to OSM permissions and the way for which the sign is valid for #3 router looks at country specific defaults (not that any router I know would actually do that?) #4 router combines tagging with defaults variant 2 -tag traffic signs on the ground: #1 mapper tags sign exactly as is #2 router looks into country/area specific table of signs and defaults and tries to do something sensible with that. variant 1 served us quite well for years but has these problems: * translation between sign on ground and persmissions can require local or even expert knowledge by the mapper * meaning of most signs can be changed by legislature anytime - suddenly the "designated footway" forbids or allows horses/skates/skis variant 2 requires more complete mapping (suffering from leaking graphhs problem) but has some advantages: * easier verifiability on the ground * the difficult sign->meaning translation can be improved/updated anytime without changing every single way that was mapped the old way * even the most exotic signs can be mapped > The idea of having area-specific defaults has been discussed before, and > AFAIK didn't get formalised. not easy but would be nice Richard _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
