Re: [Tagging] new access value
On 06.10.2015 02:08, Georg Feddern wrote: > Am 05.10.2015 um 12:01 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann: >> Many people have been using (motor_)vehicle=destination for this, but that's >> just wrong, because "destination" would mean that you are allowed to drive >> in to take a walk or shoot photos. > > Sorry, but your interpretation is wrong in my opinion - and "too literally > translated". As I already wrote in my reply to Simon, I do not know what translation you are talking about. The sentence you cited does not contain a translation. > "destination" can not be used as "you want to drive there" but as "you are > allowed to drive there" If I were allowed to drive there (without any condition), it would be vehicle=yes. >> In exchange, "destination" would prohibt >> residents from driving through - but they are actually allowed to do so. > > Yes - but that's the very rare edge case Simon wrote about. > Try to think about a router that would be able to handle this case - and its > preconditions. Thinking... Done. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new access value
Instead of trying to translate the words on the signs, why look at what the relevant laws say. There is only room on the sign for one or two words, but in the laws which define the signing there will/may be more detailed definitions of what is meant; these definitions will of course be country-specific. What is the relationship between the German "Anlieger" and "Anliegerverkehr"? Does the latter mean traffic "owned by a resident", "going to/from a resident with explicit invitation", or what? If I am thinking of buying a house on that road and want to take a look, is that allowed? In NL there is "uitgezonderd bestemmingsverkeer" (except for destination traffic) which sounds clear, but these days there is also "uitgezonderd aantoonbare bestemming" (except traffic with demonstrable destination). The latter is not defined (yet) in law, but I guess it is an attempt to plug a hole in "bestemmingsverkeer" because it is not defined how you have to justify being "destination traffic." Google Translate gives "feeder traffic" for Zubringerverkehr, but that takes its meaning in a different direction than "destination". And the Dutch/Flemish "plaatselijk verkeer" is better translated as "local traffic"; now what the hell is the (legal) definition of that? //colin On 2015-10-06 07:15, Marc Gemis wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Georg Feddern wrote: > >> As in >> - german Anliegerverkehr >> - swiss Zubringerverkehr >> - austrian Anrainerverkehr > > And (Flemish) Dutch "aangelanden (verkeer)". > > We also have the difference between > "uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer" = "except destination" > "uitgezonderd aangelanden" = "except 'visitor'" > > and I even saw > > "uitgezonderd bewoners" = "except inhabitants" > > once on a street. Wonder whether a moving or delivery company would be > allowed in the latter case. Or whether someone would try to enforce it in > such case. > > regards > > m > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new access value
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Georg Feddern wrote: > As in > - german Anliegerverkehr > - swiss Zubringerverkehr > - austrian Anrainerverkehr > And (Flemish) Dutch "aangelanden (verkeer)". We also have the difference between "uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer" = "except destination" "uitgezonderd aangelanden" = "except 'visitor'" and I even saw "uitgezonderd bewoners" = "except inhabitants" once on a street. Wonder whether a moving or delivery company would be allowed in the latter case. Or whether someone would try to enforce it in such case. regards m ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new access value
Am 05.10.2015 um 12:01 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann: Many people have been using (motor_)vehicle=destination for this, but that's just wrong, because "destination" would mean that you are allowed to drive in to take a walk or shoot photos. Sorry, but your interpretation is wrong in my opinion - and "too literally translated". "destination" can not be used as "you want to drive there" but as "you are allowed to drive there" As in - german Anliegerverkehr - swiss Zubringerverkehr - austrian Anrainerverkehr In exchange, "destination" would prohibt residents from driving through - but they are actually allowed to do so. Yes - but that's the very rare edge case Simon wrote about. Try to think about a router that would be able to handle this case - and its preconditions. Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new access value
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 04:44:30PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote: > > > Am 05.10.2015 um 16:36 schrieb Richard: > > ... just trying to imagine the poor router trying to decide how to > > route such an area. > > While some of the OSM specific routers haven't implemented it at this > point in time, in general routers have no issue at all with it. The > rough US-equivalent from a routing pov is "No Thru Traffic" (to avoid > lengthy discussions about the exact semantics, note that I wrote > "routing pov"). "No Thru Traffic" works, however is not quite equivalent to what Austrian law wants with Anrainerverkehr. A router trying to implement the Autrian law should ask the driver a bunch of questions regarding the purpose of the travel and route accordingly. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging
sent from a phone > Am 05.10.2015 um 19:43 schrieb Christoph Hormann : > > probably not very practical to > differentiate between 'pipelines with a pipe' and pipelines without a > pipe' underground. can you give an example for a pipeline without a pipe? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging
Christoph, Martin, I see things as follow : when a river is diverted to feed a hydroelectric power plant, the main of the flow goes through tunnels, shafts, valves and penstocks. Only a few of original water is still flowing the natural path for economical reasons. As for obtaining a global and routable water network, penstocks should be considered as pipelines when applicable on one hand, and as a major waterway on the other. Nor pipeline or waterway are primary or secondary keys, but standard keys giving their amount of details. Users looking for ways water is flowing will obtain data by looking at the waterway key and people looking for big visible pipelines will look at the pipeline key. Here is a visible example (and I don't give it to tag for render, I tag for data first) : ITO world is rendering waterways and pipelines (including penstocks) don't appear on it, I don't think it's so representative. http://www.itoworld.com/map/3 That was my original point Pipeline vs drain is secondary and not so important if and only if waterway connects all the parts of water cycle. I agree with Martin to say when there are no pipes, there is no pipeline. Have fun, drink water :p François 2015-10-05 19:43 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann : > On Monday 05 October 2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> >> I m not sure whether you could call a rock-cut tube a "pipe". >> Typically a pipeline would suggest someone installing pipes, not >> drilling rock. (I might be wrong here, as English is not my mother >> tongue and I'm not an expert in civil engineering, but on first >> glance pipeline sounds wrong there) > > I think you are correct in principle but man_made=pipeline specifically > includes underground features and it is probably not very practical to > differentiate between 'pipelines with a pipe' and pipelines without a > pipe' underground. > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging
2015-10-05 15:14 GMT+02:00 Volker Schmidt : > I have tagged many of these water tubes here in the Po valley, mostly in > connection with pumping_station. Tagging: man_made=pipeline and type=drain > (today I would map them with "substance" instead of "type") Hi Volker, The problem I see here is that both type=* and substance=* give what is carried by the pipeline (water, gas, oil...) not how it flows inside or not how the pipeline is built. Type=drain isn't consistent with the reviewed wiki. That's why type was replaced by substance in the last extension proposal. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/PipelineExtension#Commonly_Used_Substances All the best François ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging
On Monday 05 October 2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I m not sure whether you could call a rock-cut tube a "pipe". > Typically a pipeline would suggest someone installing pipes, not > drilling rock. (I might be wrong here, as English is not my mother > tongue and I'm not an expert in civil engineering, but on first > glance pipeline sounds wrong there) I think you are correct in principle but man_made=pipeline specifically includes underground features and it is probably not very practical to differentiate between 'pipelines with a pipe' and pipelines without a pipe' underground. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging
sent from a phone > Am 05.10.2015 um 15:19 schrieb Christoph Hormann : > > There is no practical difference > if a pressure tube is directly cut into rock or if there is a > concrete/metal lining/tubing. So IMO man_made=pipeline is appropriate > for all of these I m not sure whether you could call a rock-cut tube a "pipe". Typically a pipeline would suggest someone installing pipes, not drilling rock. (I might be wrong here, as English is not my mother tongue and I'm not an expert in civil engineering, but on first glance pipeline sounds wrong there) cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging
sent from a phone > Am 05.10.2015 um 14:43 schrieb François Lacombe : > > Let's say it's an underground river if anyone is more at ease with it if it's a river it should get the waterway=river tag, or stream if you can "jump over it" (not sure what that definition means on underground rivers, ahahaha) cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new access value
On 05.10.2015 14:19, Simon Poole wrote: > IMHO you are translating far far too literally and trying to infer a legal > meaning from that translation creating an unnecessary and likely > make-believe edge case. I don't know what translation you are talking about, but this has been exhaustingly discussed in the users:Germany webforum, and we'll be able to discuss it again after the RFC, so please leave it aside by now and let's focus on the new tag name. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new access value
Am 05.10.2015 um 16:36 schrieb Richard: > ... just trying to imagine the poor router trying to decide how to > route such an area. While some of the OSM specific routers haven't implemented it at this point in time, in general routers have no issue at all with it. The rough US-equivalent from a routing pov is "No Thru Traffic" (to avoid lengthy discussions about the exact semantics, note that I wrote "routing pov"). Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new access value
On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 12:01:57PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > I intend to write a proposal for a new access=* value, but I don't know a > reasonable tag name. So I'm asking you for suggestions. > > We need the tag for Austrian road signs labelled "ausgenommen > Anrainerverkehr" or "ausgenommen Anliegerverkehr", where "ausgenommen" means > "excepted" and "Anrainerverkehr" or "Anliegerverkehr" is the word I am > struggling to translate. These signs are mostly used in conjunction with [no > vehicles] or [no motor vehicles] signs. > > There are similar signs in Germany and Switzerland, although there has been > some debate whether the terms mean the same thing. So I am primarily > considering Austrian jurisdiction by now. The Germans or Swiss can then > decide whether they use the new access value or not. > > The meaning is a superset of > access=private/customers/delivery/agricultural/forestry. Everyone is > permitted to use the feature (road) if - and only if - he is either a > resident or owner of adjacent property or if he is aiming to get in contact > or business with a resident or owner. > > So if you own the property beside the street, you are permitted to use the > street. > If you want to visit a resident for a talk, you are permitted. > If you are delivering to a resident, you are permitted. > Hotel guests are permitted. > If you want to visit a shop, you are permitted. > If you want to visit someone who turns out to be not at home, you are > permitted anyway because you could not know. > > But you are *not* permitted to drive in if you just want to park your car > there and take a walk. > Or if you are intending to drive through without being a resident/owner. > Or if you want to shoot photos of the buildings, without visiting them. > Or if you do some mapping for OSM. The information about the traffic sign is useful, so it should be mapped as such. The permission is not useful in my opinion ... just trying to imagine the poor router trying to decide how to route such an area. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new access value
Am 05.10.2015 um 14:56 schrieb Volker Schmidt: > .. > The wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access explicitly > mentions the German "Anlieger frei" and to the best of my knowledge > that is equivalent to the Austrian German "Anrainer" And to the Swiss Zubringerdienst ... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging
On Monday 05 October 2015, François Lacombe wrote: > > What I propose : (man_made=pipeline + substance=water) + > waterway=penstock or waterway=penstock + tunnel=yes or... > > A water carrying pipeline isn't always a penstock. > A penstock isn't always a pipeline : sometimes shielded tunnels are > directly digged in rock. Waterway=* is traditionally only for free surface flow - even with tunnel=yes (although this is not generally followed strictly for short tunneled parts as mentioned). The wiki does not explicitly mention this but it is clearly implied there. There is no practical difference if a pressure tube is directly cut into rock or if there is a concrete/metal lining/tubing. So IMO man_made=pipeline is appropriate for all of these - adding a waterway tag seems unnecessary and redundant unless one of the existing waterway tags applies. > > waterway=penstock would also lack any functional distinction that > > would normally be encoded in the waterway tag - data users would > > have no way to decide how treat such feature. It would just say > > 'this waterway is tubed' not what kind of waterway it is > > (artificial/natural, clean/dirty water etc.) > > waterway=canal and waterway=drain don't give those details too : > would you be able to say if the water is clean or waste when > waterway=canal used ? > A penstock isn't a drain, isn't a canal or a river : it's a shielded > tube (not always a pipe) carrying water down a mountain to obtain a > high pressure flow. What more functional details can we give > regarding this definition ? Short penstocks are frequently part of a river/stream but likewise exist as parts of artificial waterways. You'd loose this distinction with waterway=penstock. Generally waterway=* characterizes the water and its flow while the term 'penstock' identifies a man made infrastructure. Your tagging suggestion mixes these two separate concepts into one tag which can be confusing for the mapper. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging
I have tagged many of these water tubes here in the Po valley, mostly in connection with pumping_station. Tagging: man_made=pipeline and type=drain (today I would map them with "substance" instead of "type") If you want to express the fact the pipeline is a penstock, I would suggest pipeline:type=penstock Volker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new access value
Reading your post, I would think that vehicle=destination is exactly what you are looking for. If the restriction applies only to motor vehicles, than use motor_vehicle=destination. The wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access explicitly mentions the German "Anlieger frei" and to the best of my knowledge that is equivalent to the Austrian German "Anrainer" Volker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging
2015-10-05 14:10 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann : > On Monday 05 October 2015, François Lacombe wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> How would you feel about considering waterway=penstock beside of >> waterway=canal, waterway=drain to complete pipeline tagging scheme ? >> > > Not such a good idea - that would be correctly tagged as > man_made=pipeline. My words may be unclear. What I propose : (man_made=pipeline + substance=water) + waterway=penstock or waterway=penstock + tunnel=yes or... A water carrying pipeline isn't always a penstock. A penstock isn't always a pipeline : sometimes shielded tunnels are directly digged in rock. > > A short tubed section of a regular waterway like below a bridge or dam > can be tagged waterway=* + tunnel=yes, a longer tube should always be > man_made=pipeline. According to you, waterway=drain shouldn't exists ? This is precisely what is mapped here : http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/372743390 waterway=drain may just be a bare tunnel digged in the rock without any pipe, thus man_made=pipeline shouldn't be used. Let's say it's an underground river if anyone is more at ease with it like here : http://images.lesechos.sdv.fr/archives/2010/LesEchos/20755/ECH20755024_1.jpg A pipe may be replaced on purpose instead of a drain... or a shielded penstock digged in the mountain, aren't they ? > > waterway=penstock would also lack any functional distinction that would > normally be encoded in the waterway tag - data users would have no way > to decide how treat such feature. It would just say 'this waterway is > tubed' not what kind of waterway it is (artificial/natural, clean/dirty > water etc.) waterway=canal and waterway=drain don't give those details too : would you be able to say if the water is clean or waste when waterway=canal used ? A penstock isn't a drain, isn't a canal or a river : it's a shielded tube (not always a pipe) carrying water down a mountain to obtain a high pressure flow. What more functional details can we give regarding this definition ? Cheers François ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new access value
Am 05.10.2015 um 12:01 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann: > ... > Many people have been using (motor_)vehicle=destination for this, but that's > just wrong, because "destination" would mean that you are allowed to drive > in to take a walk or shoot photos. In exchange, "destination" would prohibt > residents from driving through - but they are actually allowed to do so. > ... IMHO you are translating far far too literally and trying to infer a legal meaning from that translation creating an unnecessary and likely make-believe edge case. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging
On Monday 05 October 2015, François Lacombe wrote: > Hi all, > > How would you feel about considering waterway=penstock beside of > waterway=canal, waterway=drain to complete pipeline tagging scheme ? > Not such a good idea - that would be correctly tagged as man_made=pipeline. A short tubed section of a regular waterway like below a bridge or dam can be tagged waterway=* + tunnel=yes, a longer tube should always be man_made=pipeline. waterway=penstock would also lack any functional distinction that would normally be encoded in the waterway tag - data users would have no way to decide how treat such feature. It would just say 'this waterway is tubed' not what kind of waterway it is (artificial/natural, clean/dirty water etc.) -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] waterway=penstock to complete pipeline tagging
Hi all, How would you feel about considering waterway=penstock beside of waterway=canal, waterway=drain to complete pipeline tagging scheme ? Penstocks pipes are mostly used in hydroelectric power plants to provide high pressure water to turbines. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Tossaka_power_station_penstock.jpg I use to tag low pressure water supply infrastructure as waterway=drain or waterway=canal. Example : http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/372743390 and man_made=pipeline + substance=water for the high pressure part (sometimes overground shielded metal pipes going along hills and mountains) Example : http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/372743380 These ways are connected, sometimes with a surge tank depending of the hydraulic circuit configuration. Currently, I find something missing regarding man_made=pipeline + substance=water because a pipe carrying water can correspond to many things in reality. man_made=pipeline + substance=water + *waterway=penstock* would fill the lack. I suggest waterway=penstock because it has the same target as waterway=canal or waterway=drain : a water path more than a pipeline type, part of the global routable water network. waterway=penstock is used 36 times whereas 18 for pipeline:type=penstock (non-reviewed key for pipeline:type out of the scope of the last pipeline extension proposal). http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=penstock#values All the best François Lacombe fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com www.infos-reseaux.com @InfosReseaux ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] new access value
I'm of the opinion that "visitors" is indeed the best translation to what you have described. --K -Original Message- From: Friedrich Volkmann [mailto:b...@volki.at] Sent: Monday, 05 October 2015 12:02 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: [Tagging] new access value I intend to write a proposal for a new access=* value, but I don't know a reasonable tag name. So I'm asking you for suggestions. We need the tag for Austrian road signs labelled "ausgenommen Anrainerverkehr" or "ausgenommen Anliegerverkehr", where "ausgenommen" means "excepted" and "Anrainerverkehr" or "Anliegerverkehr" is the word I am struggling to translate. These signs are mostly used in conjunction with [no vehicles] or [no motor vehicles] signs. There are similar signs in Germany and Switzerland, although there has been some debate whether the terms mean the same thing. So I am primarily considering Austrian jurisdiction by now. The Germans or Swiss can then decide whether they use the new access value or not. The meaning is a superset of access=private/customers/delivery/agricultural/forestry. Everyone is permitted to use the feature (road) if - and only if - he is either a resident or owner of adjacent property or if he is aiming to get in contact or business with a resident or owner. So if you own the property beside the street, you are permitted to use the street. If you want to visit a resident for a talk, you are permitted. If you are delivering to a resident, you are permitted. Hotel guests are permitted. If you want to visit a shop, you are permitted. If you want to visit someone who turns out to be not at home, you are permitted anyway because you could not know. But you are *not* permitted to drive in if you just want to park your car there and take a walk. Or if you are intending to drive through without being a resident/owner. Or if you want to shoot photos of the buildings, without visiting them. Or if you do some mapping for OSM. Many people have been using (motor_)vehicle=destination for this, but that's just wrong, because "destination" would mean that you are allowed to drive in to take a walk or shoot photos. In exchange, "destination" would prohibt residents from driving through - but they are actually allowed to do so. I have been using (motor_)vehicle=delivery, because it's more permissive than private, and I always felt that delivery somewhat implies customers. But it's not fully correct either, because pedestrian areas exist where deliverers are permitted to drive in, while customers are not. So we need a new tag. Maybe *=visitors? or *=guests (but this could make believe that deliverers are excluded) or *=contact (puzzling?) or *=contact_with_residents (too bulky?) or *=contact_with_abutters (same) or *=in_touch... ? What do you think? -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] new access value
I intend to write a proposal for a new access=* value, but I don't know a reasonable tag name. So I'm asking you for suggestions. We need the tag for Austrian road signs labelled "ausgenommen Anrainerverkehr" or "ausgenommen Anliegerverkehr", where "ausgenommen" means "excepted" and "Anrainerverkehr" or "Anliegerverkehr" is the word I am struggling to translate. These signs are mostly used in conjunction with [no vehicles] or [no motor vehicles] signs. There are similar signs in Germany and Switzerland, although there has been some debate whether the terms mean the same thing. So I am primarily considering Austrian jurisdiction by now. The Germans or Swiss can then decide whether they use the new access value or not. The meaning is a superset of access=private/customers/delivery/agricultural/forestry. Everyone is permitted to use the feature (road) if - and only if - he is either a resident or owner of adjacent property or if he is aiming to get in contact or business with a resident or owner. So if you own the property beside the street, you are permitted to use the street. If you want to visit a resident for a talk, you are permitted. If you are delivering to a resident, you are permitted. Hotel guests are permitted. If you want to visit a shop, you are permitted. If you want to visit someone who turns out to be not at home, you are permitted anyway because you could not know. But you are *not* permitted to drive in if you just want to park your car there and take a walk. Or if you are intending to drive through without being a resident/owner. Or if you want to shoot photos of the buildings, without visiting them. Or if you do some mapping for OSM. Many people have been using (motor_)vehicle=destination for this, but that's just wrong, because "destination" would mean that you are allowed to drive in to take a walk or shoot photos. In exchange, "destination" would prohibt residents from driving through - but they are actually allowed to do so. I have been using (motor_)vehicle=delivery, because it's more permissive than private, and I always felt that delivery somewhat implies customers. But it's not fully correct either, because pedestrian areas exist where deliverers are permitted to drive in, while customers are not. So we need a new tag. Maybe *=visitors? or *=guests (but this could make believe that deliverers are excluded) or *=contact (puzzling?) or *=contact_with_residents (too bulky?) or *=contact_with_abutters (same) or *=in_touch... ? What do you think? -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
