Proposal talk:Destination symbols for recommended/restricted/hazardous routes routes

What about text only and the meaning itself

My place doesn't really have this pictogram signage, so what about text only signs? Furthermore how to actually tag the meaning of this? The symbol is only a symbol, as a sign. In your example, the restriction (ie hgv:conditional=no @ (weight>7.5)) would be tagged at the regulatory sign. At the guidance sign, should there be a hgv:conditional=discouraged @ (weight>7.5) for the right , and hgv:conditional=designated @ (weight>7.5) for the left direction? Technically the section from the guidance sign to the regulatory sign on the right is not "discouraged" on its own, only for routing towards Ballaison. Vice versa for the left.

Would it be something as hgv:conditional=discouraged @ (weight>7.5 AND destination=Ballaison) and hgv:conditional=designated @ (weight>7.5 AND destination=Ballaison)}}; or destination:to:hgv:conditional=Ballaison @ (weight > 7.5) and destination:to:hgv:conditional=@ (weight > 7.5)} (empty)? Yes, it's quite long. Therefore another option is actually going full type=destination_sign.

@Kovposch: such symbols advise you that you may encounter these limitations further along this route, not that you will encounter them, nor that they apply immediately; that's why you can't simply use hgv, maxheight… on the way exiting the junction. Besides, as you can see on the examples I gave, they may apply only to some destinations; that's why I'm thinking about using destination:symbol, or maybe another destination:* subkey. This has the appreciable side effect of modelling the list of destinations in the order in which they are displayed on the ground.

As for type=destination_sign relations: yep, they could be an option, but they have drawbacks. The inability to order destinations between multiple relations for multiple signs on the same pole (for instance, some destinations are green, some other white) bothers me; besides, using a relation when simply tagging a way can do the job, sounds overkill to me. --Penegal (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

France sign format

According to Key:destination:symbol#Values, France community in https://forum.openstreetmap.fr/t/destination-symbol-et-ideogrammes-directionnels-francais/9125 decided to use destination:symbol=FR:*. While I can't read and discuss the rationale in French, I see 2 issues with this. When there are multiple pictograms and locations, it would be shorter to use prefix destination:symbol:FR=*;*,* than prefixing every destination:symbol=FR:*;FR:*,FR:*. (and worse destination:symbol:lanes=*...) Not only is this easier to add, read, and interpret, it avoids potentially hitting IconValue=* 255 char length limit; especially since it can be full names, as destination:symbol=FR:vosgean_belchen_regional_park shows. This standardizes with others viz police:FR=* and place:PH=*. This is a problem in traffic_sign=* as well. Thus secondarily, formatting as such avoids confusion with traffic_sign=FR:123's format of numeric code for consistency.

Fundamentally, experience in traffic_sign=* shows storing contextual info (eg traffic_sign=hgv[7.5t]) is not scalable, and correctly showing combinations. It is better to use traffic_sign=* + eg hgv:conditional=discouraged @ (weight>7.5).

@Kovposch: your destination:symbol:FR=*;*,* could indeed do the job. I didn't think about it because such national symbols, at least in France, are typically used alone on any sign, and I found it clearer to use a prefix for each symbol.

As for your last sentence, maybe it is because you suddenly switch to another issue, but… well, I pretty don't understand your sentence. --Penegal (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)