2009/8/28 Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com>: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 10:05 PM, "Marc Schütz"<schue...@gmx.net> wrote: >> >> Note that by requiring a junction, you make it impossible to model stop >> signs don't involve a junction. > > Yeah, I was thinking about this too.... You could argue that a stop > sign/"requirement to stop" should be modeled not by "a way and a > junction", nor by a "node on a way and the nearest junction" but by a > *node on a way and a direction*. > > After all, stop signs are generally not double-sided. > > How about this...just tag a node (must be on a way) where the stop > sign/line is in reality, with the following: > stop:forward=yes, or > stop:backward=yes, or > stop=yes (for a node on a oneway=yes way, else implies the stop sign > applies in both directions)
You are still trying to tag for routing software, or trying to compare a stop sign with a oneway segment, this really should be dealt with as a bigger issue of lanes rather than the hacks people seem to be coming up with. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
