> > There's no reason to reinvent the wheel here. Plus, as far as I can tell, > the suffix (:2) solution doesn't work when there's more than one "main" > traffic sign. >
I dont reinvent anything. Multivalues are hard to manage but also you don't have more than one "main" traffic signs. European conventions recommends no more than three values at the same pole, and no more than three destinations in a sign so a multivalue does not the best solution. Every sign has its meaning and the combination of the second position for a traffic sign says you the limit of the first traffic sign, so it is important to remark the position of the traffic sign. As Finnish people demonstrate traffic sign second position can be managed without problems. For example, in the style or the recreation of Kendzi3Ds plugin of JOSM you can have two or three positions of every traffic sign without problem. yopaseopor On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 5:55 PM Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de> wrote: > On 02.10.2018 16:44, yo paseopor wrote: > > Also it is not the best call "undersigns" . There are signs too, with > > their code, and you can put in on second place or third place , like > > traffic_sign:2 as Finnish people does. > > Or put them in a comma-separated list, which is the international > standard tagging that's documented on > https://wiki.osm.org/Key:traffic_sign > > There's no reason to reinvent the wheel here. Plus, as far as I can > tell, the suffix (:2) solution doesn't work when there's more than one > "main" traffic sign. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
