On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:29 AM, John Smith<delta_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 disagree. > > Pre-processor finds a stop sign, looks for the nearest junction node which it > would already know is a junction for routing purposes.
Not too bad when you put it like that. Thanks :) If this is written up as a proposal, I would prefer it worded like that (with reference to a *requirement to stop* at the *nearest junction node* when *approached from the way on which the node is placed*), rather than referring to "stop signs". 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...). I wonder if you preferred a similar solution for turn restrictions (i.e. add an additional node to implicitly refer to the "nearest junction"), to avoid relations for those also? If not, why not? _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
