User talk:Steffterra

Key:destination

Currently this is being done with the name on highway=motorway_junction, and there's also Relation:destination sign for more complicated cases. --NE2 00:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's why i didn't speak about highway=motorway_junction, but on motorway itself, motorway_link (for the uplink to the motorway) and the same for trunk, trunk_link etc. The motivation is in easy tagging this helpful information a motorway_link belongs to a direction for the motorway like you would ask in a natural usability. Therefore it is also easier for navigation-software to read an easy tag instead of a complicated relations for a sign. I told aonly about the sign for correct reading the name of the town, wich means the name of the destination wich is to be tagged. For example the maxspeed-tag is also not tagged with a relation for it's sign, but as a (more or less) easy to use tag.

So what's the problem using this easy tag telling in an easy way which direction the motorway_link and the following motorway belongs to? steffterra Thanks for feedback

What's the problem with using the name tag on the motorway_junction node? --NE2 16:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: The name-tag on the motorway_junction node ist good enough for the downlink of a motorway. That's true and was not the aim of the destination-tag. But you can also use it here for different destinations at a common junction-node. And that's very often in Germany.

The name tag on the motorway itself means in Germany the name from the beginning to the end of the whole motorway. For example: Hamburg-München through the whole country. And: It says nothing about the destination one way of the motorway ges to. Does it go to Munich or to Hamburg? Does this motorway_link goes to Munich or to Hamburg?

But I have some other arguments for using this easy to use tag:

• The motivation is in easy tagging this helpful information a motorway_link belongs to a direction for the motorway like you would ask in a natural usability.
• Also its an easy way to tag complicated motorway_links at (for example) motorway-crossings, etc, which is not coverd by the motorway_junction tag.
• Also it is also easier for navigation-software to read an easy tag instead of a complicated relations for a sign. I told aonly about the sign for correct reading the name of the town, wich means the name of the destination wich is to be tagged.
• Easy to handle for every software. Relations have one problem in common: they can't be used directly form the routing software's on market today. They have to use a extern database for the relations. For Tags this is not needed for routing (Yes, wer're not tagging for routing-software, but we don't bend existing tags for routing! Instead of it we use an easy tag like others established ones. For example the maxspeed-tag, is also not tagged with a relation for it's sign, but as a (more or less) easy to use tag.)
• the destination tag in the meaning of my edits in the wiki are already established in Germany: for example tagwatch says: http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Germany/De/ignored_destination.html. In whole Europe tagwatch says it's already used 3992 times(!)

So -please- what's to discuss about this anymore?

--steffterra, thanks for all your feedback

You know, I've thought about it a bit, and this tag does seem useful. I had forgotten that Europe doesn't use directions like A1 east. In North America, an onramp to a highway will give the highway number and the direction, for example I-5 south. --NE2 09:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your agreemet :-) And I want to add: It would also be useful for ohter countries, to tag where (the town name) a highway/freeway/motorway goes to, right? So what. Aren't there in North America no signs, the name of the town is written, where the Road geos to? I can't believe it ;-)

--steffterra

We have those too - they're called control cities. --NE2 01:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

But there's still no tag for it, right? Maybe it would be good to take US with us in our europe "destination-boat" and create an 2nd-level-tag like "destination:control_city:Boston"? Is this a Idea which might work? Nice discussion with you by the way :-) --Steffterra 07:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Control cities generally aren't well-defined enough to use by name; we could just use the same destination tag. --NE2 07:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)