On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:06 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I tought it was obvious, but let me spell it out: such restrictions > represent a default which we should be recorded somewhere (not necessary > inside OSM) once and observed by data consumers, not by creating potentially > 100000’s of relations to again and again encode the default behaviour.
Uhm, of course. That said, is it worse to have redundant data, or no data? The best outcome would be that someone would finally have the discussion of traffic restrictions on an area. (That's what would be needed to model a lot of communities near me, which often have signs on all the roads coming in, with text like: "Welcome to Niskayuna. Town speed limit 30 mph except as posted. No parking midnight-6am on any street after 4 inch snowfall." This is surely field-observable, and it applies to an area (or to the ways bounded by that area). Given the field observability, I think it belongs in OSM if mappers want to map it and routers want to consume it. Until we've had that discussion, and arrived at a consensus on what to do about locality-wide signed traffic restrictions, we're offered the choice of redundantly encoded data or no data. I don't know what the right answer is, but it surely is not simply to tell mappers "don't map it that way" without offering an alternative. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
