Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

[John Willis]

Javbw
> On Jul 3, 2016, at 1:06 AM, Johnparis  wrote:
> 
> Are you seriously suggesting that virtually every single traffic signal in 
> the United States be tagged with "right turn permitted on red after stop"


Might need to make this an admin level setting - 99. percent of all traffic 
signals in Japan are Always "no (left) turn on red" - I have seen maybe one or 
two in 10 years. This of course is the opposite of the US, where there are a 
few "no (right) turn on red" signals scattered around (1%?) at major bothersome 
/ dangerous intersections. 

The signal type that really bothers me in Japan is their "red light with green 
arrows" - meaning the green arrow direction has the opposing traffic stopped, 
similar to a "red signal+green left turn arrow" in the US  - but imagine that 
for a "straight" green arrow - a "stop" red light with a "go" green arrow! - Or 
three "left right straight" green arrows *with a giant red light*!" It confused 
the hell out of me when I first saw it. This also means that the other 
directions without a green arrow cannot move (so no left or right turns (below 
example) regardless, until the red light goes away and a green signal appears 
or your own arrow is green. 

These are the "1%" signals in Japan - not so many, but often enough to be 
noticed daily. 

(Sorry I can't make the link smaller) 

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kiryu+By-pass,+6+Chome+Hirosawachō,+Kiryū-shi,+Gunma-ken+376-0013,+Japan/@36.3727198,139.3520262,3a,66.8y,119.28h,90.24t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s5hMLyUDJ0lfja58QfYFEDQ!2e0!4m6!1m3!3m2!1s0x601e6085c836ae59:0xd799356889717292!2sGunma+Prefecture,+Japan!3m1!1s0x601ee1c490a03e09:0x6e074449b67a58c



Javbw. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

[Jeffrey . Rhodes]

  ‎I think a set of rules and defaults for each country/territory would actually make a lot of sense. Sure it would be additional work in the beginning, but it would safe a lot of work in the long run. In the last couple of topics it seemed fairly obvious that most of North America has tons of traffic laws that are just completely different from those in most of Europe. And I assume Africa, Asia and South America got their own specific defaults that are at odd with the rest of the world, so ‎a default by cpuntry/territory would clear up those problems without the need to find a (probably very complex) solution that bundles all of that into one.JeffreyVon: Colin SmaleGesendet: Samstag, 2. Juli 2016 18:20An: tagging@openstreetmap.orgAntwort an: Tag discussion, strategy and related toolsBetreff: Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?
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


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

[Colin Smale]

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

Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

[Simon Poole]

The defaults per territory concept exists since a -very- long time
(2008)  ...
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions

In this case IMHO given that the sign doesn't actually change
access/routing it simply modifies the meaning of the traffic signal, any
tagging should be on the signal and a restriction relation doesn't
actually make any sense.

Simon



Am 02.07.2016 um 18:17 schrieb Colin Smale:
>
> 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
>> <mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Message: 2
>> > Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 17:06:59 +0200
>> > From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>>
>> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>> > <tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>
>> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?
>> > Message-ID: <45fed486-3423-40d5-80e4-5d6406fe0...@gmail.com
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

[Tod Fitch]

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 <mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Message: 2
>> > Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 17:06:59 +0200
>> > From: Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com 
>> > <mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>>
>> > To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>> > <tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>
>> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?
>> > Message-ID: <45fed486-3423-40d5-80e4-5d6406fe0...@gmail.com 
>> > <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
>> <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

Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

[Colin Smale]

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

Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

[Johnparis]

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

Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

[Bryan Housel]

Most tools follow the rule described here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:restriction 


"If the first word is "no_", then no routing is possible from the "from" to the 
"to" member. If it is "only_", then you know that the only routing originating 
from the "from" member leads to the "to" member. This distinction is also shown 
in the examples section 
 of this 
page.”

So OSRM is correct in this case. 

If you want to make up a new restriction relation type, it’s better to use new 
tags.  
for example:
  type=restriction:on_red 
  restriction:on_red=no_right_turn


Thanks, Bryan




> On Jul 2, 2016, at 10:55 AM, Nathan Wessel  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> I've been running into some trouble with the following tag recently. 
> 
> 'restriction'='no_right_turn_on_red' 
>  
> mapped as a turn restriction relation. 
> 
> My problem is that OSRM treats it as a no_right_turn restriction, though 
> obviously it should not prevent all turning. The wiki indicates that this is 
> the expected behaviour though; it seems that anything beginning with 'no_' 
> means no turn is permitted from the 'from' way to the 'to' way. I brought 
> this up on the restriction talk page here 
>  
> and a couple people implied that this was definitely not the right tag, if 
> restriction is even the right key. I then brought the topic up for discussion 
> on talk-ca (about half of all occurrences of this tag are in Toronto and 
> Ottawa, where I'm having my particular routing issues), and the people on 
> that list were pretty adamant that the tag was useful and made sense as is. 
> One person suggested this should be reported as a bug 
>  for 
> OSRM. 
> 
> 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?
> 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] "no right turn on red" tagging?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 02 lug 2016, alle ore 16:55, Nathan Wessel 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 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