Proposal talk:Relation:intersection

Perhaps this should be a proposal?

It looks like this relation type has only been used 3 times: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/type=intersection and https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/U1a

Since there is a rather detailed list of suggested tags, it would make more sense for this to be a proposal page, e.g. Proposed_features/Relation:intersection - would it be ok to move the page there? --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Scale of proposal

1. Does this apply to pure "crossing"s (a crossing between different modes of transport), without a junction between 2 roads?
2. Furthermore, an "intersection" is often an at-grade junction with crossing points, and an "interchange" is a grade-separated one. Previous proposals on junctions often tried to handle both. Is this applicable to interchanges?
3. "A 2-node way shall be used to connect the physical position with the virtual position" I wouldn't agree with this. By this scheme, multiple lines have to be drawn from, for instance, all the primary and secondary traffic signal display poles to all their respective stop-lines - this would already be a mess. If there are carriageway or even lane areas, are you going to draw multiple tringles from each pole to their stop-lines??? It would be even more complex to handle hanging traffic lights, and by-lane traffic signals.
   1. In contrast, this is what a relation is supposed to be for. Despite the challenges, it is being used on eg relation:enforcement well (for comparison, by the logic of this scheme, should a polygon be drawn from the enforcement camera covering the affected segment or even area?). There is a difference that can be made between the traffic signal or sign as a man-made object (the device itself), and as a highway (or railway) feature (its effect). I won't say the latter is "virtual" - the stop-line and any road marking (not to mention underground detectors if any) are very physical to me.
4. I don't understand the purpose of the "virtual" roles, again especially if you raised the idea of area and by-lane mapping.
5. I don't see why there needs to be separate `railway` and `crossing_railway` roles either. That seems like meta information. You won't add "crossing_pedestrian" and "crossing_cycleway" right?

This looks greatly ambitious, and challenging to work with. -- Kovposch (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)