Thanks Martin This then means that tagging a traffic_sign:forward<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Traffic_sign#As_part_of_a_way>=* on a node that is part of a way is also more then arguable. We'll have to keep on searching for better ways to map traffic signs. Maybe the Finnish style <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Finland:Traffic_signs> is not so bad after all ;-)
cheers PeeWee32 2014-02-06 17:07 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > > 2014-02-05 17:14 GMT+01:00 Pee Wee <piewi...@gmail.com>: > > I'd discourage this tagging (and, semantically it doesn't make sense >>> anyway). >>> >>> OK but why does it not make sense semantically? It seems to me that it >> is unambigious > > > > it has no meaning at all. A point / node has no direction, so > forward/backward do not make any sense, only ways can have > forward/backward. What you want to do is an implicit relation (you want to > say: this node "a" in forward direction of this way "b" has this > restriction "c") without creating it explicitly. As it is implicit, common > tools won't know about it (they only know explicit relations). One could > implement a method to determine such situations for the tools, but that > still doesn't make the semantics nice looking, you still have a tag on a > node which is actually about the direction of a way without the way being > explicitly stated. A better mapping would somehow reference this way (and > the node, i.e. a relation). > > cheers, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > -- Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap<http://www.openstreetmap.org> .
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
