Talk:Proposed features/Relation:type=traffic control
The similar, but more limited Proposed_features/Relation:type=stop really should be incorporated here. You might want to communicate with the owner, to see if he/she is amenable to doing that and obsoleting that page. Also, there are some things there which could be added here. And I'd like to see a little more research done to specify the entries in the Deprecates section.
I am in favor of this as the best proposed improvement over the current traffic control tagging situation, although there may be other things to consider, such as signal lights. However, you may or may not want to go there. See the @ discussions on synchronized lights, etc. --turbodog 18:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't like "The location of signs, for rendering positions hints". I think that the sign node must be where the sign is and not where the sign should be in the rendering. If you want to give a hint for the render introduce an other node with different role--wiso 21:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm new to this wiki, but not entirely new to OSM mapping. I am working on a piece of routing SW, so having an approved way to map traffic control is important for me. And hey, this proposal is awesome! At least compared to all those alternatives such as tagging nodes near the junction as highway=stop.. Another viable (much more discussed) alternative is Relation:type=stop. AFAIK there is not a way to map traffic control yet? What is it exactly, that makes this proposal "unfit for duty"? Why has the progress stalled? I am new to the wiki and I do not entirely get the system of proposals here, so forgive me if I'm asking a stupid question :-) Pavelpotocek (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)