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 stop=yes/both/-1. > >> How about adding forward/backward information to each stop sign node > >> instead? Would depend on way direction, of course, but as the stop nodes > >> would be placed on single ways rather than intersections, it would be > >> possible. Is there a reason why you didn't choose this approach? > > > > 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 > > "established" way of mapping those. > > Why not place the stop sign node where the stop line / stop sign is > physically located? > Nothing arbitrary about that. You can measure the distance from the stop > line to the centre of the junction of you want.
You'd still need some kind of relationship for that to be effective (i.e. to relate the highway=stop to the junction node) -- and AFAICT typical consumer GPS units aren't that precise. (btw, that's what I've done until now, taking waypoints where stop signs/lines physically were) David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk