Fully agree with you Tod. It could be so simple.
On 2016-07-02 18:30, Tod Fitch wrote:
> Been shot down already a year or two ago that I know of.
>
> I still think defaults per administrative area/boundary with inverse
> hierarchical nesting (more local overrides less local) makes a lot of sense.
>
> Example 1: The default speed limit assumption for a city take precedence over
> that of a state. And those for a state take precedence over that of a nation.
> Specific signed based tagging on a way is the "most local" of course and
> overrides any default based on administrative boundaries.
>
> Example 2: Set default for "right turn on red after stop" to true for all
> U.S. But then set default for NYC to false. (However "right turn on red" tag
> semantics are eventually defined.
>
> On Jul 2, 2016, at 9:17 AM, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> One of these days someone will introduce the concept of defaults per
> territory. My prediction is that this suggestion will either get mercilessly
> shot down in flames, or be quietly accepted, probably depending on who
> suggests it.
>
> //colin
>
> On 2016-07-02 18:06, Johnparis wrote:
> Ooh, I think Martin's suggestion would become a MAJOR project.
>
> If I recall correctly, "right turn permitted on red after stop" is the
> traffic law in the entire United States with the sole exception of New York
> City. (Wikipedia says this has been the case since late 1978.)
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that virtually every single traffic signal in
> the United States be tagged with "right turn permitted on red after stop"
> instead of tagging the few with "no turn on red"? How does this comport with
> the notion of tagging what you see -- the only signs you'll see in the USA
> are "no turn on red" (with the exception of NYC).
>
> John
>
> Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 17:06:59 +0200
>> From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>
>> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>> <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?
>> Message-ID: <45fed486-3423-40d5-80e4-5d6406fe0...@gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>>> Il giorno 02 lug 2016, alle ore 16:55, Nathan Wessel
>>> <nate.wes...@mail.utoronto.ca> ha critto:
>>>
>>>
>>> Who is right here? Should I report this as a bug and change the wiki to
>>> allow turns on ^no_.*" relations as standard or should the tagging be
>>> changed? And how?
>>>
>>
>>
>> right turn on red is something that isn't generally allowed, some countries
>> do, some do if additional signs are posted. I'd suggest to explicitly tag
>> the positive case (right turn on red is allowed), rather than assuming a
>> default of yes and tag the negative cases.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
