|
I have come across a couple of streets which have No Exit signs at their junctions with a major road. However, the road network beyond allows through traffic by motor vehicles. I presume the signage is to deter the use of the streets as rat-runs. I would like to tag this information in such a way that it does not destroy the real routability of these roads (i.e., without using restriction relations or |
|
A noexit node where the sign is? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:traffic_sign This would map that there is such a sign there, but wouldn't add a noexit tag to the road itself which might upset routing. 1
While this meets the "ground truth" criteria, I do not see how that helps the situation. Routing would completely ignore the information, but we actually want routing to treat this street specially.
(08 Apr '13, 12:56)
Vincent de P... ♦
1
This does seem the most sensible way, although the recommended use of obscure official codes on the wiki does not suggest it is likely to be widely used. Surely the codes should be in ref tags, with some sort of human readable value for the main key. I went with no_exit_except_cycles, no doubt this will be suitably corrected by those that know.
(30 Apr '13, 10:06)
SK53 ♦
|
|
If the purpose is indeed to avoid rat-runs, tag the way with access=destination. Motorists frequently bend the rules and would not obey a "residents only" sign, which is why you see those false no-exit signs to trick them. But a good routing engine will respect the access value, by not routing anybody trhough the street unless it is their destination or their starting point. 1
If there is no access=destination traffic rule in force, putting it there because someone does not want cars there would be clearly wrong. Driving through streets, where such rule is in force would be "illegal" and indeed good general purpose routers should not send you there.
(07 Apr '13, 16:24)
LM_1
3
access=destination limits all transportation modes (foot etc) and is is seldom correct, use for example motor_vehicle=destination or similar
(08 Apr '13, 09:20)
SimonPoole ♦
2
@LM_1: The thing in this example is: there is an official traffic sign that does not make sense, unless you interpret it as an access=destination restriction. So that "someone" you mention actually is the local traffic authority and it should be mapped. The problem is that the official sign is not being honest (in response to motorists not being honest), and gives a skewed message that we, as mappers feeding data for routers, must interpret subjectively. I stand by my "=destination" suggestion, using "motor_vehicle" for the tag as SimonPoole rightly points out.
(08 Apr '13, 12:53)
Vincent de P... ♦
There is a sign claiming dead-end. This sign is legal and binding. So it should be mapped that way.
(09 Apr '13, 09:56)
gormo
1
(repeating myself for the last time) @gormo: Yes, but this legal-and-binding dead-end sign is only intended for drivers outside the "dead-end" street. Drivers inside the street may legaly exit the street either way (If I understood the OP correctly). How do you map this accurately ? I have yet to see a better suggestion than motor_vehicle=destination.
(09 Apr '13, 11:52)
Vincent de P... ♦
2
Dead-end signs are information signs, there is nothing "binding" about them. Since in this case the information is clearly incorrect, the best way to map this, is not mapping it at all.
(09 Apr '13, 17:19)
cartinus
This is exactly NOT what I wanted to do or asked in the question.
(30 Apr '13, 10:07)
SK53 ♦
showing 5 of 7
show 2 more comments
|
