Volker Schmidt:
Hi,
In the case of signed hazards, I see two alternative ways of tagging the
signing:
* (only for nodes and ways highway segments) by adding source:xxx=sign like
we do
with speed limits
I this it the best option.
* by mapping the relative signs as nodes
That often will not work. For example in Denmark on road with high speed limits
animal crossing hazards are usually signed ahead of the hazard like this:
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?focus=photo&pKey=7G5cfeYYHs7T_TQD4l-ifw&signs=true&points=true&lat=55.54605389678716&lng=9.557919996586406&z=17
The same for hidden driveways in North America.
Insertion of signposted hazards do not require any assessment of the presence of the
hazard by the mapper.
Signposted hazards are most often signalling dangers for vehicle drivers. Let's take
the sign for hazard=cyclists (crossing), which warns clearly the vehicle drivers on
the carriageway, that there could be cyclists crossing.
There is normally no such warning on the crossing cyclists' path.
We have warning signs for speed bumps on bicycle lanes and for low height when a
bicycle lane go under a low brige.
This of course should be tagged by using traffic_calming and max_height on the
highway=cycleway
Then we have also the asymmetric situations: e.g. car drivers are warned by a sign
that there will be cyclists crossing, but the (bigger) hazard of cars hitting the
cyclists on the same crossing is not signposted for cyclists.
Around here I think that is reasonable because it is usually when a road is crossed
by a small unpaved path, that is used by cyclists.
If it is a real cycle path it would have a yield sign for cyclists.
--
Niels Elgaard Larsen
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
