2009/8/28 Norbert Hoffmann nhoffm...@spamfence.net:
No, Roy wants to tag the semantics of the stop-sign. If this really
simplifies the task of the data consumers, it's all the better.
It seems the problem Roy is trying to solve is to seperate lanes out,
of a dual direction way by use of a
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:18 PM, John Smithdeltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/28 Norbert Hoffmann nhoffm...@spamfence.net:
No, Roy wants to tag the semantics of the stop-sign. If this really
simplifies the task of the data consumers, it's all the better.
It seems the problem Roy is
2009/8/28 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
So what are you proposing? How should we tag stop signs? To me, it
seems you are suggesting that stop signs should *only* be tagged on
ways that are oneway=yes. What are you proposing?
Nothing of the sort. We really don't seem to be on the same
2009/8/28 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk:
This does bring up a few more combinations that are not currently
covered. I've had a couple of runs over to Milton Keynes in the last
couple of days, and GETTING into the correct lane even to go straight on
can be a problem, with the outside lane of
Hi
Ideas? Comments? Flames? :-)
I'll have to admit that I didn't read the proposal or any of the mails
in this thread. However, I still have a comment:
All I can think of when reading Key:stop is that I can't wait to
finally see or use:
stop=hammer time
stop=in the name of love
stop=collaborate
This brings up an interesting question, when you're finding the
nearest junction to use for stop key on a node, what counts as a
junction? It's going to be a node which belongs to the current way and
at least one other way satisfying certain conditions, but what are
those conditions? If
2009/8/27 Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net:
Note that by requiring a junction, you make it impossible to model stop signs
don't involve a junction.
I don't know how frequent these occur, but I can imagine cases where there is
a sharp curve before which you're required to stop. And I believe
On 27/08/2009 09:37, Lars Francke wrote:
Hi
Ideas? Comments? Flames? :-)
I'll have to admit that I didn't read the proposal or any of the mails
in this thread. However, I still have a comment:
All I can think of when reading Key:stop is that I can't wait to
finally see or use:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Marc Schützschue...@gmx.net wrote:
Note that by requiring a junction, you make it impossible to model stop signs
don't involve a junction.
Yeah, I was thinking about this too You could argue that a stop
sign/requirement to stop should be modeled not by a
Disclaimer: I'm new to the OSM mailing lists, so hopefully I didn't
screw up my email :D
~
I must say that I find both Relation:type=stop and Roy's ideas
interesting. The former suggests that we abstract reality away while
the latter suggests we mirror reality in OSM.
Mirroring reality
2009/8/28 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Marc Schützschue...@gmx.net wrote:
Note that by requiring a junction, you make it impossible to model stop
signs don't involve a junction.
Yeah, I was thinking about this too You could argue that a stop
John Smith wrote:
2009/8/28 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
How about this...just tag a node (must be on a way) where the stop
sign/line is in reality, with the following:
stop:forward=yes, or
stop:backward=yes, or
stop=yes (for a node on a oneway=yes way, else implies the stop sign
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Only if the lanes are marked as separate ways, which they
normally
wouldn't be for a narrow road.
They should be, anything other than lanes=2 should be tagged properly, lanes=2
is implied as that is the usual case for most roads.
On 26/08/2009, at 1:38 PM, John Smith wrote:
I agree, we need more tags to describe the railway crossing's
feature set, boom_gate=no, lights=no etc, however this is a special
case for stop signs because they will exist either side of the
junction and never applies to the railway line.
On 26/08/2009, at 1:10 AM, Lester Caine wrote:
I think the point here is that of being able to see easily what has
been
applied to the data. Nodes and ways are easy to see, but this extra
data
is probably not so obvious as you would not know that a node ON the
way
actually has extra
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
This brings up an interesting question, when you're
finding the
nearest junction to use for stop key on a node, what
counts as a
junction? It's going to be a node which belongs to the
current way and
at least one other way
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:22 PM, James Livingstondoc...@mac.com wrote:
On 26/08/2009, at 1:38 PM, John Smith wrote:
This brings up an interesting question, when you're finding the
nearest junction to use for stop key on a node, what counts as a
junction? It's going to be a node which belongs
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 7:31 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
If we are to use the stop key, I think those
conditions will need to be explicitly spelt out, so that
you can process the data.
Which is tagging for routing
--- On Thu, 27/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
You also seem to be saying that routing software should
work out
*for itself* which junction the stop sign applies to. I
disagree - the
mapper on the ground should be able to enter this
information in the
database.
Then we
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:15 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Thu, 27/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
You also seem to be saying that routing software should
work out
*for itself* which junction the stop sign applies to. I
disagree - the
mapper on the
--- On Thu, 27/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
There are two important differences:
1) The meaning of a particular way or node is separate from
the value
of is_in. On the other hand, the meaning of a requirement
to stop is
NOT separate from knowledge of the junction to which
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:06 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Besides why should you care about needing this explicit information, if it's
rendered you will see a sign, you will also see the nearest junction and your
mind can put 2 and 2 together. A computer can do the exact same
--- On Thu, 27/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
You're asking why should we tag things explicitly? Because
we're
building a database. A huge, complex database that's used
by lots of
That's just a straw man argument, you keep building the same thing up again and
again but it
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:14 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Thu, 27/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Besides, I asked you personally why you cared, why do you care, or how will
it benefit you personally how a stop sign is marked?
My apologies, I
--- On Thu, 27/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
My apologies, I misinterpreted your question why should
you care
about needing this explicit information. To answer your
question, I
do not care personally. It will not benefit me personally
whatsoever
how a stop sign is marked.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I see what you mean, but the stop sign does NOT apply to just an
intersection - it applies to a way(s) AND an intersection. This is
because the applicability of the stop sign at an intersection might
depend on your
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I see what you mean, but the stop sign does NOT apply to just an
intersection - it applies to a way(s) AND an intersection. This is
because the
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
You say the node when you mean a node somewhere near the node.
near means where the sign is.
I prefer 1) for a number of reasons. IMHO, 2) and 3) are more or less
attempts to mimic 1) in order to avoid using a relation.
--- On Tue, 25/8/09, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not againt relations when it is adding information. If
I have a
100 meters way and a single stop sign node 5 meters before
the
intersection, It is just waste of time and resource to add
a relation
for something obvious. I have better
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:31 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
This whole argument seems to be about tagging for routing software which is
as bad as tagging for render.
What's so bad about sticking a stop node 3-5m before the intersection, after
all how many junctions have a
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:31 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
This whole argument seems to be about tagging for routing software which is as
bad as tagging for render.
What's so bad about sticking a stop node 3-5m before the intersection, after
all how many junctions have a stop
--- On Tue, 25/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
This is not about tagging for routing software.
Then what is it?
I'll ask again, how many stop signs appear after you go through an intersection?
In my experience the answer is none, so it's a simple calculation to establish
which
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a different stance - I am against using anything that isn't a
relation when a relation is necessary.
no problem with that.
And a relation is necessary
when a tag involves an inseparable interaction of ways/nodes,
--- On Tue, 25/8/09, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
Or we could just always use a relation, so that mapping and
software
don't have to check for two different things, when editing
and
processing data respectively.
Or in other words, tagging for the routing software, this
On 25/08/2009, at 10:22 PM, John Smith wrote:
--- On Tue, 25/8/09, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
Or we could just always use a relation, so that mapping and
software
don't have to check for two different things, when editing
and
processing data respectively.
Or in other words,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
1) a relation with the node and the way as members, as in,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop)
2) the way tagged with indirect reference to the node (i.e. start or
end node of way)
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:34:52 + (GMT)
John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I'll ask again, how many stop signs appear after you go through an
intersection?
I'm a little tired of reading about this, so I'm going to contribute my
two cents:
Almost every intersection I've seen has the
--- On Tue, 25/8/09, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
Sorry, I had a typo in that sentence - it should read so
that mappers
and software As well as software, it makes it easier
for mappers
who wouldn't have to check arbitrary nodes around a
junction.
No, the easiest thing
--- On Tue, 25/8/09, Joseph Booker j...@neoturbine.net wrote:
Almost every intersection I've seen has the stop sign *at*
the
intersection.
The intersection is the middle of the two or more ways intersecting, the stop
sign is always before the intersection, not at the intersection.
Here,
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:06:19 +0200
Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com
wrote:
1) a relation with the node and the way as members, as in,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop)
2) the way
2009/8/25 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
How can mapping out a node not be simple? It is a lot simpler than mapping
out a relation or splitting a way etc etc etc and the only thing that
benefits from stop sign information is routing software, editors don't,
mappers don't so making it
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Joseph Bookerj...@neoturbine.net wrote:
According to
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Relation:type%3Dstop ,
it seems like you would just have 3 relations. The first relation would
include the node for the top intersection and the two
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Joseph Booker j...@neoturbine.net wrote:
It's not a normal traffic light. It is legally and
practically treated
the same as a stop sign. My state describes it as This
sign is used at
intersections when a stop sign alone is hard to see or
where additional
emphasis on the
Pieren wrote:
A small pic is better than a long speach. One example with one major
street and six minor streets all having stops when intersecting with
the major street:
Or three minor roads all crossing the same major one
|
---+---
|
---+---
|
---+---
|
3) add 6
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:34 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 25/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
This is not about tagging for routing software.
Then what is it?
It's about choosing the most appropriate way to tag something that
*intrinsically* involves
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 10:06 PM, James Livingstondoc...@mac.com wrote:
Or we could just always use a relation, so that [mappers] and software
don't have to check for two different things, when editing and
processing data respectively.
Yup.
___
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Pierenpier...@gmail.com wrote:
First interaction is the coordinates/positions of these elements. We
shouldn't create relations if the information can be deduced from the
positions. We had a similar discussion about identifying all objects
inside a polygon (tag
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Joseph Bookerj...@neoturbine.net wrote:
You gain nothing with the proposals raised compared to relations,
except some avoidance of relations. With relations the tagging is much
simpler, it makes sense intuitively when you come across it in the
data...
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:06 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Have a look at the awful way someone came up with tagging speed cameras, I
couldn't figure it out at the time so I ended up tagging speed cameras as a
single node with highway=speed_camera. Why would making it harder
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Peter Childspchi...@bcs.org wrote:
The only time I can see a relation actually helping is with stuff that
is difficult to map like no left turn
Do you realise why you need a relation for no left turn? It's
because the restriction *intrinsically involves more
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that deducing the meaning of a node tagged
with stop
from the positions of the ways and nodes in the vicinity
is equally
clear. I know you disagree.
Pre-processor finds a stop sign, looks for the nearest junction
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:29 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure that deducing the meaning of a node tagged
with stop
from the positions of the ways and nodes in the vicinity
is equally
clear. I know you
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I still think it isn't best-practice, for the reasons I've
already
described, but I admit it is attractive if you really,
really don't
like relations (for some reason...).
It's not that I dislike relations, I think they're
2009/8/26 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:29 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Pre-processor finds a stop sign, looks for the nearest junction node which
it would already know is a junction
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote:
What about railway crossings? I've seen railway
crossings with no
lights, gates or similar, just a stop sign. Usually
way out in the
middle of nowhere, so there may not be a routable junction
for quite
some distance, and even if
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote:
What about railway crossings? I've seen railway crossings with no
lights, gates or similar, just a stop sign. Usually way out in the
middle of nowhere, so there may not be a routable junction for quite
some distance, and
--- On Wed, 26/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Good point. Also, how about a straight section of road that
becomes
narrow (single lane) in one section, and therefore has a
stop (or give
way) sign on one side of the narrow section. There's no
junction at
all in this case.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:32 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
Actually there is still a junction from when it goes from 2 lanes to 1 lane,
and the (usually in .au) give way sign is before the junction of the 2 lanes
into one.
Only if the lanes are marked as separate ways, which
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:39 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:53:53 +1000, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in
favour
--- On Mon, 24/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
stop=first (-1)
stop=last (yes)
stop=both (both)
Hrmm that is more concise, but I think less
self-explanatory (remember
that not everyone reads the wiki before editing). E.g.
stop=both could
be misunderstood to mean
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 5:44 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
What happens at T intersections where there is a stop sign on all ways, and
cross intersection with 4 stop signs, the US version of a roundabout
effectively.
The ways must be split so that they end (or begin) at the
--- On Mon, 24/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
The ways must be split so that they end (or begin) at the
intersection. (This is required for most of the relation
proposals
anyway, IIRC.)
Then, each way to which a stop sign applies should be
tagged with
stop=at_last_node
On 24/08/2009, at 8:53 AM, Roy Wallace wrote:
I don't like this, because before is arbitrary. If the stop
requirement applies to the intersection, I think it should be applied
to the intersection itself (either directly or as a member of a
relation).
I agree that these kind of things should
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 6:22 PM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I liked your suggestion of putting a node just before the intersection and
tagging it, making relations and splitting ways sounds like something very
convulted just for a stop sign so most people probably won't be
--- On Mon, 24/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
It wasn't my suggestion. I don't like the idea of putting
a node just
before the intersection, because that is arbitrary. If
we're tagging
an attribute of the way, tag the way - if we're tagging an
attribute
of the intersection,
John Smith wrote:
--- On Mon, 24/8/09, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
The ways must be split so that they end (or begin) at the
intersection. (This is required for most of the relation
proposals
anyway, IIRC.)
Then, each way to which a stop sign applies should be
tagged with
--- On Mon, 24/8/09, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Adding an extra node does make sense, but probably needs a
'relation' to
the intersection as well? In any case the direction through
this new
node is the critical piece of information? Tagging ways
would require
that every section
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:00:14 +1000, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 3:39 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:53:53 +1000, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to start
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Lester Caineles...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
The exact problem here is that the 'STOP' requirement only relates to
the junction with another road and is therefore not a tag of the way or
the intersection, but rather information relating to approaching one
from the
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 12:23 AM, John Smithdelta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
I've seen a lot of talk about stop signs, but in Australia there is also give
way signs, which can imped flow of traffic similar to stop signs.
Replacing stop with give_way (or similar) should do the trick. The
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:32:46 +0200, Renaud MICHEL wrote:
Le lundi 24 août 2009 à 15:25, Lester Caine a écrit :
Adding an extra node does make sense, but probably needs a 'relation' to
the intersection as well? In any case the direction through this new
node is the critical piece of
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:54:00 +1000, Roy Wallace wrote:
So IMHO David's proposal is a good way to avoid the use of a relation
- if that is what people want. I personally don't mind relations as
they're more explicit and not dependent on way direction.
I don't mind relations either, I use lots
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:58 AM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, they must IMHO. The wiki explains the ontology of the tags we're using,
and the wiki is the main regulamentation for tags. Otherwise we go wild, and
everyone uses what she likes best.
Yes, but STILL - tags should
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:16:34 +1000, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:58 AM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, they must IMHO. The wiki explains the ontology of the tags we're
using, and the wiki is the main regulamentation for tags. Otherwise we go
wild, and
People, please *don't* CC me. I'm subscribed to the list.
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:02:30 +0200, Pieren wrote:
Tagging a whole way just because you have to stop at the end is a deep
modeling mistake.
Please, explain why.
There is no similarity between the oneway which applies to the way
with
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:02 AM, Pierenpier...@gmail.com wrote:
Tagging a whole way just because you have to stop at the end is a deep
modeling mistake.
There is no similarity between the oneway which applies to the way
with a stop sign which applies to an intersection.
I see what you mean,
Hello,
I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in
favour of using stop=yes/both/-1.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:stop
Unfortunately, when the page was first created, it was mistakenly put directly
under the root namespace, instead of
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:48 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote:
The first usage is putting highway=stop in the node where ways intersect: this
is not right, since that intersection represents (more-or-less) the center of
the junction, and I've never seen a stop sign in the middle of a
[...]
This is obviously wrong. Yes, we could link those stops with the junction in a
relation -- but adopting a proper Key:stop stop seems *much* cleaner to me.
[...]
Yes, the highway=stop is not a good solution. However, I prefer the
suggested relation instead.
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:46:35 +0200, Pieren wrote:
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 12:48 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote:
The first usage is putting highway=stop in the node where ways intersect:
this is not right, since that intersection represents (more-or-less) the
center of the
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:27:42 +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote:
David Paleino wrote:
I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in
favour of using stop=yes/both/-1.
How about adding forward/backward information to each stop sign node
instead? Would depend on way
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:17:02 +0200, Konrad Skeri wrote:
[...]
This is obviously wrong. Yes, we could link those stops with the junction
in a relation -- but adopting a proper Key:stop stop seems *much* cleaner
to me. [...]
Yes, the highway=stop is not a good solution. However, I prefer
On 23/08/2009 15:45, David Paleino wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:27:42 +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote:
David Paleino wrote:
I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in
favour of using stop=yes/both/-1.
How about adding forward/backward information to each
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:58:36 +0100, Craig Wallace wrote:
On 23/08/2009 15:45, David Paleino wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 14:27:42 +0200, Tobias Knerr wrote:
David Paleino wrote:
I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in
favour of using
On 23/08/2009 17:15, David Paleino wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:58:36 +0100, Craig Wallace wrote:
On 23/08/2009 15:45, David Paleino wrote:
Read my reply to Pieren: how close you put the stop sign to the effective
junction is pretty arbitrary, that's why I'm trying to abandon my
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:48:58 +0100, Craig Wallace wrote:
On 23/08/2009 17:15, David Paleino wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 16:58:36 +0100, Craig Wallace wrote:
Why not place the stop sign node where the stop line / stop sign is
physically located?
Nothing arbitrary about that. You can
On 23/08/2009 18:09, David Paleino wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:48:58 +0100, Craig Wallace wrote:
Why is it necessary to relate the highway=stop to the junction node?
Isn't it obvious that if a highway=stop is within a few metres of a
junction, then its part of the same junction. It
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in
favour of using stop=yes/both/-1.
First impression: the value of the tag is extremely ambiguous, and in
no way self-explanatory. I don't
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 08:53:53 +1000, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM, David Paleinod.pale...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to start discussion on the deprecation of the Tag:highway=stop in
favour of using stop=yes/both/-1.
First impression: the value of the tag is
89 matches
Mail list logo
