Okay, if I get you right, you want to add to every element with the tag highway=traffic_signals and the tag name=* also another new tag, either – highway=junction or – junction=traffic_signals and the presence or absence of this tag shall influence the rendering?
* Here, I still do not see your point. What would you gain in doing so? You have more tags, which means more work. But can you do anything that you can not do with the current, yet existing tagging? * highway=junction is impossible because the OSM database does not allow two tags with the same key on the same element. * junction=traffic_signals would also be problematic because in Japan you can have named traffic signals on straight road, for pedestrian crossing , and there is not any road junction. Lukas Lukas Sommer 2014-09-18 19:31 GMT+00:00 fly <lowfligh...@googlemail.com>: > Am 18.09.2014 21:29, schrieb fly: > > Am 18.09.2014 16:07, schrieb Lukas Sommer: > >> > >> > >> So far, highway=traffic_signal is only defined for nodes and there > are > >> only few ways and fewer relations. > >> > >> > >> Correct. > >> > >> > >> > >> Also in favour of separation I would prefer to use junction=* with > >> name=* and only highway=traffic_signal with name if it is only a > single > >> light (e.g. the case with a named junction and different separate > names > >> for the lights) > >> > >> This way we could add an additional junction=* to the nodes with > named > >> traffic_signal and once all lights are tagged separately only use > >> junction=* for ways. > >> Additionally we have a better hint for the renderer what to render > and > >> diversify between a named junction and single named traffic_signals. > >> > >> cu fly > >> > > > > Sorry, was kind of confusing, try again: > > > > 1. simple solution with only one node > > junction=yes/traffic_signal/* > > highway=traffic_signal (if the junction has lights) > > name=* > > > > 2. area > > junction=yes/traffic_signal/* > > name=* > > > > > > Maybe also highway=junction [1] could be used. > > > > Renderer could use junction=* to determine the needed icon and we stay > > consistant with the use of traffic_signals. > > > > This makes detailed tagging possible while adding the information for > > renderers to > > > >> Hm, I am not sure if I understand you correctly. You want to use > >> junction=yes not on nodes anymore, but only on areas – and change the > >> currently existing cases in OSM? > > > > No, no problem with junction=* on nodes but in long term only needed for > > rare situations and low detailed mapping > > > >> If so, I would disagree here. We have a yet existing tagging that works > >> well for both – named junctions and names traffic signals – as long as > >> this are simple junctions like > >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Junction_yes_example_1.png My > >> proposal keeps the existing tagging for simple junctions – and extends > >> it also to complex junctions. I am not convinced in changing the current > >> tagging practice for simple junctions and require changing a lot of yet > >> existing data in OSM. Currently I do not know of any situation where we > >> have at the same place on the ground a different junction name and a > >> different traffic signal name. It seems to me a barely theoretical > >> problem. Maybe that does not mean that such a situation is impossible to > >> exist. However, we should create our tagging scheme starting from the > >> situation on the ground, and this seems to be either junction names or > >> traffic signal names, but not both things at the same time. Replace an > >> existing simple practice with a new complicate practice just to solve a > >> problem that does probably not exist on the ground? > > > > Well, I just followed this thread: > > > >>>> Am 16.09.2014 16:49, schrieb Satoshi IIDA: > >>>>> 2014-09-16 23:38 GMT+09:00 fly <lowfligh...@googlemail.com>: > >>>>>> The name belongs to the junction and not to the traffic_signal, > >>>>>> am I wrong ? > >>>>> In Japan, Hokkaido region, there is 4 traffic_signals on 1 > >>>>> junction. > >>>>> Each traffic_signals and 1 junction has different name. > >>>>> > >>>>> Indeed it is rare case. > >>>>> But I think we need Lukas's idea to support it. > > > >> However, I think it is nevertheless a good idea to think about this > >> case. I would propose to leave the existing tagging for simple > >> intersections as it is (with tagging on a node). Moreover, for the rare > >> case that we have a junction and a traffic signal with different names, > >> one of them could be represented by an area around the other one (and > >> same thing on complex junctions/traffic signal systems). Thus, we keep a > >> door open to tag two different names, just for the case that sometime we > >> really need it. Nevertheless, we do not break compatibility with the > >> current practice, and we do not make things unnecessarily complicate for > >> the real-world cases. > > > > Ok, here we are common. > > > > Hope my thoughts are better understandable this time. > > > > Cheers fly > > > > forgot the link > > [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/highway=junction > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
