Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles - keys updated

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. Dec 2019, at 15:34, Jan Michel  wrote:
> 
> * moped:electric - slow electric motorcycles (EU: up to 25 km/h typically)
> * mofa:electric -medium fast electric motorcycles  (EU: up to 45 km/h 
> typically)


you have these reversed, mofa is the slow version and moped the faster

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles - keys updated

[Jan Michel]

Hi Joseph,

On 23.12.19 01:00, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
small_electric_vehicle for segways and electric kick scooters seems 
confusing to me: I would imagine this including electric golf carts 
(already tagged golf_cart=yes/designated/no) and perhaps other things.

The term is borrowed from European law. If there are better alternatives
we haven't found them yet.

It’s also a bit odd that electric pedal-assist bicycles with limited top 
speed are to be tagged electric_bicycle= but faster e-bikes would be 
tagged “speed_pedelec=“ - shouldn’t it be “high_speed_electric_bicycle=“ 
or similar?
As Volker already said, both "electric bicycle" and "speed pedelec" are 
quite well-know terms in several languages in Europe.

I very much favor this over a newly made up key.




Joseph

On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 11:34 PM Jan Michel 
> wrote:


Taking the various comments and suggestions into account,
I revised some of the tags proposed and also included electric mopeds
in the proposal.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ElectricBicyclesAndScooters



The current set of tags is:

* electric_bicycle - bicycles with motor assistance
* speed_pedelec - fast electric bicycles, similar to mopeds
* kick_scooter - the 'childrens style' scooter
* small_electric_vehicle - electric scooters (similar to kick
scooters),
Segway etc. These refer to a class of vehicles in European (French,
German) law
* moped:electric - slow electric motorcycles (EU: up to 25 km/h
typically)
* mofa:electric -medium fast electric motorcycles  (EU: up to 45 km/h
typically)

I hope that this set of tags is able to cope with most existing and
planned regulations and is free of ambiguities.
Please let me know your opinion and further suggestions!

Jan


On 10.11.19 18:05, Jan Michel wrote:
 > Hi,
 > up to now we don't have documented tags for small electric
vehicles like
 > bicycles and scooters. On the other hand, special access rules and
 > amenities become more and more common.
 >
 > These new keys are not only necessary for access tags, but also
intended
 > for use with any other kind of amenity like parking, shops, service,
 > charging...
 >
 > I wrote a proposal [1] to define common keywords for these vehicles.
 > Please let me know your opinion and further suggestions!
 >
 >
 > Jan
 >
 >
 > [1]
 >

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ElectricBicyclesAndScooters

 >
 >
 >
 > ___
 > Tagging mailing list
 > Tagging@openstreetmap.org

 > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles - keys updated

[Volker Schmidt]

Pedelec and S-Pedelec are terms frequently used in EU countries.
A good introduction is the Wikpedia article Pedelec.

As for tagging we need to be extremely careful not to use ambiguous terms.
Certainly access=electrical_bicycle is to be avoided as that would comprise
two categories of vehicles (Pedelec and S-Pedelec) that are treated very
differently in many countries.

This subject is really messy as we have also cities issuing local
regulations as well that can modify national regulations.

Don't we have in the community someone who knows someone who works in the
electrical bicycle market? The manufacturers need to have some
documentation, I presume.





On Mon, 23 Dec 2019 at 01:01, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> small_electric_vehicle for segways and electric kick scooters seems
> confusing to me: I would imagine this including electric golf carts
> (already tagged golf_cart=yes/designated/no) and perhaps other things.
>
> It’s also a bit odd that electric pedal-assist bicycles with limited top
> speed are to be tagged electric_bicycle= but faster e-bikes would be tagged
> “speed_pedelec=“ - shouldn’t it be “high_speed_electric_bicycle=“ or
> similar?
>
> Joseph
>
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 11:34 PM Jan Michel  wrote:
>
>> Taking the various comments and suggestions into account,
>> I revised some of the tags proposed and also included electric mopeds
>> in the proposal.
>>
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ElectricBicyclesAndScooters
>>
>>
>> The current set of tags is:
>>
>> * electric_bicycle - bicycles with motor assistance
>> * speed_pedelec - fast electric bicycles, similar to mopeds
>> * kick_scooter - the 'childrens style' scooter
>> * small_electric_vehicle - electric scooters (similar to kick scooters),
>> Segway etc. These refer to a class of vehicles in European (French,
>> German) law
>> * moped:electric - slow electric motorcycles (EU: up to 25 km/h typically)
>> * mofa:electric -medium fast electric motorcycles  (EU: up to 45 km/h
>> typically)
>>
>> I hope that this set of tags is able to cope with most existing and
>> planned regulations and is free of ambiguities.
>> Please let me know your opinion and further suggestions!
>>
>> Jan
>>
>>
>> On 10.11.19 18:05, Jan Michel wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > up to now we don't have documented tags for small electric vehicles
>> like
>> > bicycles and scooters. On the other hand, special access rules and
>> > amenities become more and more common.
>> >
>> > These new keys are not only necessary for access tags, but also
>> intended
>> > for use with any other kind of amenity like parking, shops, service,
>> > charging...
>> >
>> > I wrote a proposal [1] to define common keywords for these vehicles.
>> > Please let me know your opinion and further suggestions!
>> >
>> >
>> > Jan
>> >
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ElectricBicyclesAndScooters
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Tagging mailing list
>> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles - keys updated

[Joseph Eisenberg]

small_electric_vehicle for segways and electric kick scooters seems
confusing to me: I would imagine this including electric golf carts
(already tagged golf_cart=yes/designated/no) and perhaps other things.

It’s also a bit odd that electric pedal-assist bicycles with limited top
speed are to be tagged electric_bicycle= but faster e-bikes would be tagged
“speed_pedelec=“ - shouldn’t it be “high_speed_electric_bicycle=“ or
similar?

Joseph

On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 11:34 PM Jan Michel  wrote:

> Taking the various comments and suggestions into account,
> I revised some of the tags proposed and also included electric mopeds
> in the proposal.
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ElectricBicyclesAndScooters
>
>
> The current set of tags is:
>
> * electric_bicycle - bicycles with motor assistance
> * speed_pedelec - fast electric bicycles, similar to mopeds
> * kick_scooter - the 'childrens style' scooter
> * small_electric_vehicle - electric scooters (similar to kick scooters),
> Segway etc. These refer to a class of vehicles in European (French,
> German) law
> * moped:electric - slow electric motorcycles (EU: up to 25 km/h typically)
> * mofa:electric -medium fast electric motorcycles  (EU: up to 45 km/h
> typically)
>
> I hope that this set of tags is able to cope with most existing and
> planned regulations and is free of ambiguities.
> Please let me know your opinion and further suggestions!
>
> Jan
>
>
> On 10.11.19 18:05, Jan Michel wrote:
> > Hi,
> > up to now we don't have documented tags for small electric vehicles like
> > bicycles and scooters. On the other hand, special access rules and
> > amenities become more and more common.
> >
> > These new keys are not only necessary for access tags, but also intended
> > for use with any other kind of amenity like parking, shops, service,
> > charging...
> >
> > I wrote a proposal [1] to define common keywords for these vehicles.
> > Please let me know your opinion and further suggestions!
> >
> >
> > Jan
> >
> >
> > [1]
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ElectricBicyclesAndScooters
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles - keys updated

[Jan Michel]

Taking the various comments and suggestions into account,
I revised some of the tags proposed and also included electric mopeds
in the proposal.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ElectricBicyclesAndScooters 



The current set of tags is:

* electric_bicycle - bicycles with motor assistance
* speed_pedelec - fast electric bicycles, similar to mopeds
* kick_scooter - the 'childrens style' scooter
* small_electric_vehicle - electric scooters (similar to kick scooters), 
Segway etc. These refer to a class of vehicles in European (French, 
German) law

* moped:electric - slow electric motorcycles (EU: up to 25 km/h typically)
* mofa:electric -medium fast electric motorcycles  (EU: up to 45 km/h 
typically)


I hope that this set of tags is able to cope with most existing and 
planned regulations and is free of ambiguities.

Please let me know your opinion and further suggestions!

Jan


On 10.11.19 18:05, Jan Michel wrote:

Hi,
up to now we don't have documented tags for small electric vehicles like 
bicycles and scooters. On the other hand, special access rules and 
amenities become more and more common.


These new keys are not only necessary for access tags, but also intended 
for use with any other kind of amenity like parking, shops, service, 
charging...


I wrote a proposal [1] to define common keywords for these vehicles.
Please let me know your opinion and further suggestions!


Jan


[1] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ElectricBicyclesAndScooters 




___
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Allroads]

As I wrote earlier:
>>So I must make a icon for speedpedelec, for use my style.
>>This is needed because, government write speedpedelec with text on 
>>traffic_sign (undersigns). Even estate owners could make signs with 
>>..
At the bottom of the diagram speed_pedelec is needed, because govenment use 
then a text (or which icon) on traffic_sign.
A direct translation is needed.

Key is needed.

In the Netherlands a speed_pedelec is a moped, by rule, follow the rules of 
moped, BUT, then the govenment can use the text speed_pedelec to express a 
other behavour,  “uitgezonderd” except.
The base tag speed_pedelec must be there.

*: electric=* This have nothing to do with base tag of a vehicle. There could 
be speed_pedelec:electric=yes. Maybe in the future a other kind of power is 
used.

So I did not say moped:electric= is a speed_pedelec, moped:electric can be a 
much bigger group. Earlier I posted a link with “special mopeds” 
https://www.rdw.nl/over-rdw/actueel/dossiers/bijzondere-bromfietsen
In the Netherlands the speed_pedelec must know that they have to follow the 
moped rules, so also moped:electric=yes. He can use that road.

So is a segway, is also a moped. Because in text or icon, prohibited.
Key segway or a other key?  Does a icon that looks like a segway mean a bigger 
group ( the motorcar problem, this mus be avoided )

Then there are hoverboards (self-ballancing scooter)

All small electric vehicles. How to put them in a access diagram?


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 11. Dez. 2019 um 13:29 Uhr schrieb Allroads :

>
> Lately I wrote down for myself some thoughts.
> 1. A traffic sign (combination) should preferably be tagged with as few
> tags as possible.
> 2. A traffic sign should preferably be tagged as directly as possible with
> tags.
> 3. Neutralizing, opposite tagging should be avoided as much as possible.
>


completely agree, could be copied to the access documentation page.



> 4. The diagram access hierarchy is not complete, missing keys.
>


yes


5. When developing key value, the decision hierarchy must be considered.
>


yes



> 6. Every way of transport must have equal opportunities to achieve good
> routing.
>


I do not understand what you intend with "equal opportunities", the
possible transport modes are infinite, so we should focus on the common
transport modes IMHO. This does not imply we should ignore the others, but
we must not invent tags for hypothetical transport modes unless they are
needed somewhere. At this point, the specific case should be discussed.



> 7. Possible conflicting keys/value must be solved. (Dual explanation).
>


sure



> 8. A traffic signs wiki is very important. (Also combination signs on
> pages.) Carefully selected, customized for possibility of use in presets.
>


traffic signs are per country, with ~200 countries this will become quite
big. It certainly is doable for standardized signs, but many jurisdictions
allow for free form signs (text), so this can never become "complete". See
6.), lets discuss and invent new tags when needed.
I've suffered myself from unclear textual traffic signs, at the via Appia
Antica in Rome (ancient road with paving that doesn't make it generally
useful as a shortcut), vehicular traffic is generally excluded (in
theory/by signage), but there's a textual exception: "except local traffic"
(it:eccetto traffico locale). I've asked on the Italian mailing list and
checked in the traffic law, but the term doesn't seem to be defined. A
websearch only found other people with the same problem of not
understanding the meaning. Here's an official example of the police
ordering such an exception for a day (but there are also permanent signs):
https://www.comune.roma.it/web-resources/cms/documents/disciplina_bianchi.pdf
(you can see that they first added "except residents" and then changed it
to "local traffic").



>
> multi_tracked_motor_vehicle, the possibility of use, used in presets, (it
> is a correct key) maybe over 10-15 years, we see, it is a established key,
> more important then motorcar. ;-) The life of a key. Mission accomplished.
> Give it a try?
>


can you give a real world example where it would be needed? Is there a
traffic sign for a multi-tracked motor vehicle somewhere that is different
from a motorcar icon / where there are specific distinct signs for both?



>
> or is a key needed that gives which type of motor is used.
>
> moped=no  and moped:electric=yes
>


I am not sure speed pedelecs are a subclass of moped. In some countries at
least, mopeds are defined through the engine displacement (50ccm), this
obviously can not apply to an electric motor.



>
> In the Nedertherlands on a G13 traffic_sign “not mandatory cycleway” a
> mofa can use it, BUT, ..
> “Bestuurders van snorfietsen uitgerust met een verbrandingsmotor mogen
> het onverplichte fietspad slechts gebruiken met uitgeschakelde motor.”
> “Drivers of light mopeds equipped with an internal combustion engine may
> only use the non-mandatory cycle path with the engine switched off.”
>


IMHO this is a case for "do not map your local legislation", IMHO it means
your legislation says that mofas with the combustion motor turned off are
considered bicycles. The mofa driver must know this rule and can interpret
the bicycle restrictions in this case.




>
> *:electric=* is lower in hierarchy  not used yet,
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/mofa:electric
> Is this better to appoint electric use?
>


mofa:electric has the same comment then moped:electric: I'd rather use a
new specific key for both. Something like "pedelec" and "speed_pedelec".
It's probably only a question of time when the legislators will start to
cater specifically for this kind of vehicle (own symbols etc.). We're
supposedly in a transition phase where things have not settled yet. It
seems also to be better according to your list (points 1-4).

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Allroads]

>.>they? Why didn’t you do something about it? 
> (or are you asking for bicycles with sidecars?)
>generally I agree, exceptions apply. In the motorcar example they are grounded 
>in real life particularities (best reason I’d say).
>...

I am a part of the they, then it was not within my area of focus, scope, in the 
given time range when it originated and was implemented, now after a while we 
all have more knowledge, then the question is how we can solve it in a way that 
does justice to, where the tagged does not be destroyed in such a way, that it 
remains applicable. That is my approach now.
So leave motorcar as it is, people who want to use it, because it is used so 
much. 
Don't let us stop implementing the following.
Give people the opportunity, to tag more correctly, this means for me the 
introduction of multi_tracked_motor_vehicle, /mt_motor_vehicle. This does 
justice to the principle “generally I agree”. 

Where I am working on: 
Traffic_sign translation. I miss keys for transportation, to make a tag 
combination. So I am interested in the access diagram.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Overzicht_Nederlandse_Verkeersborden
Ended up to make a style, to see and control the tags. Get hints in Josm 
window. 
http://mijndev.openstreetmap.nl/~allroads/JOSM/Styles/Road_extended_JOSM_style_info.html
Far from ready. Under construction. I must totally rewrite it, because of new 
insights, new wishes, things are not possible in mapcss and still learning, 
time as stumbling block.
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=58694
Focus on road tagging.

When it comes to a voting about a key/value.
Give people the opportunity, to tag more correctly, at a voting, which 
arguments are more important. Saying “no” “yes”, the why is more important.
When I make a proposal, multi_tracked_motor_vehicle. Many are fine with 
motorcar, If they do not see the need for others and there vote is “no”, this 
“no” has for me a lesser value.
This could have a negative effect on the development of OSM.
Which interest is greater than the others, what to decide.

Lately I wrote down for myself some thoughts. 
1. A traffic sign (combination) should preferably be tagged with as few tags as 
possible.
2. A traffic sign should preferably be tagged as directly as possible with tags.
3. Neutralizing, opposite tagging should be avoided as much as possible.
4. The diagram access hierarchy is not complete, missing keys.
5. When developing key value, the decision hierarchy must be considered.
6. Every way of transport must have equal opportunities to achieve good routing.
7. Possible conflicting keys/value must be solved. (Dual explanation).
8. A traffic signs wiki is very important. (Also combination signs on pages.) 
Carefully selected, customized for possibility of use in presets.

multi_tracked_motor_vehicle, the possibility of use, used in presets, (it is a 
correct key) maybe over 10-15 years, we see, it is a established key, more 
important then motorcar. ;-) The life of a key. Mission accomplished.
Give it a try?

So I must make a icon for speedpedelec, for use my style.
This is needed because, government write speedpedelec with text on traffic_sign 
(undersigns). Even estate owners could make signs with ..

small electric vehicles, as a group, which vehicles, where is it placed in the 
hierachy, which icon should I use.
hydrogen, ...must these vehicle have also their own group? (future)

or is a key needed that gives which type of motor is used.

moped=no  and moped:electric=yes

In the Nedertherlands on a G13 traffic_sign “not mandatory cycleway” a mofa can 
use it, BUT, ..
“Bestuurders van snorfietsen uitgerust met een verbrandingsmotor mogen het 
onverplichte fietspad slechts gebruiken met uitgeschakelde motor.”
“Drivers of light mopeds equipped with an internal combustion engine may only 
use the non-mandatory cycle path with the engine switched off.”
https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0004825/2019-07-01#HoofdstukII_Paragraaf1_Artikel5
This means that you can use it with a electric motor or bicycle pedals (if on 
it), manually.
Then the access is mofa=no mofa:electric=yes mofa:manual=yes.
This is a translation of a traffic_sign and law rules.

*:electric=* is lower in hierarchy  not used yet, 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/mofa:electric

Is this better to appoint electric use?

I think so it could also be used for all type of vehicles.

See the practise of emission zones and rules, what we see translated on 
traffic_signs.
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=60186 even the age of a 
vehicle is now used.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Dec 2019, at 21:12, Allroads  wrote:
> 
> because of motorcar abuse, they wrote the controversy in it. A problem to be 
> solved. We all know how a wiki developed, evaluates, a few can change the 
> content.


maybe only relative few are updating the wiki, but for a tag to be consistently 
applied, the wiki is not the only factor. A lot of people are required to 
consistently add motorcar tags to highways differently compared to the current 
documentation until the “few” can update the access page without an outcry or 
at least revert from the rest. This particular wiki edit is not the reason the 
motorcar key has different meanings according to its value, rather the other 
way round, the hint was added because it was used like this. And it was used 
like this because the same motorcar symbol on traffic signs has different 
meaning depending on the kind of sign (prescription or restriction), so there 
might be a perceived data inconsistency from the pov of a data consumer, but 
less so compared to real life.


> They did not want to solve the problem then. 



they? Why didn’t you do something about it?


> Now you have a sidecar, it is a motorcycle but also multitracked vehicle. 
> This get very complicated to write a routing and parking script for sidecars.
> This is a disadvantage for the sidecar group.
> I believe each category must have equivalent method of treatment.


IMHO this is a completely different situation. Very few mappers own sidecars, 
personally I have no idea which specific rules apply to motorcycles with 
sidecars (or are you asking for bicycles with sidecars?), and as a result 
mappers tend to forget about adding sidecar tags (or are simply not interested 
in looking up the details). Each category cannot be dealt with equally on a 
practical level because people are volunteers and are adding tags about things 
they care for. Sidecars probably haven’t reached the point where there are 
enough mappers so that decent coverage could have been achieved. Look how good 
we are in representing bike access specifics, it’s because there are so many 
cyclists.


>  
> “The meaning of tags”, is a key/value combination, both key and value must be 
> distinctive, so the combination can not mean something else, waht both say. 
> Contradiction must be avoided. That is common method usage.


generally I agree, exceptions apply. In the motorcar example they are grounded 
in real life particularities (best reason I’d say).

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Allroads]

>it really depends. I guess we agree that the meaning of tags in OSM is based 
>on their common usage, so motorcar=yes means an automobile (i.e. not including 
>for example busses or trucks), while motorcar=no means any multi-tracked 
>motorized vehicle is excluded (implies hgv=no, tourist_bus=no, etc.).
>This is based on the legal meaning of the common traffic signs that get 
>translated into this tag (and may be different in some jurisdictions, I am 
>only referring to places I know, i.e. western / central Europe).
I disagree.
I used this as example, that a key must have distinct meaning, that is in OSM a 
common practice. The method is more decisive, more important. 
If you see the beginning of the key motorcar 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motorcar in the wiki, it was only 
automobiles, because of motorcar abuse, they wrote the controversy in it. A 
problem to be solved. We all know how a wiki developed, evaluates, a few can 
change the content. They did not want to solve the problem then. There are 
quite a few mappers, who are annoyed by this.
Now you have a sidecar, it is a motorcycle but also multitracked vehicle. This 
get very complicated to write a routing and parking script for sidecars.
This is a disadvantage for the sidecar group.
I believe each category must have equivalent method of treatment. In 
particular, it should not work to a disadvantage.
“The meaning of tags”, is a key/value combination, both key and value must be 
distinctive, so the combination can not mean something else, waht both say. 
Contradiction must be avoided. That is common method usage.
If I ask a lot of people about the method, than the outcome is your right. So 
the motorcar usage is not common practice, it is a problem.
It is a bit off topic, it is a example, how things can go wrong.
That is my message in this topic.
The development of new key / value tags, must meet certain method conditions.
In the Netherlands, the Government have a group “Bijzondere bromfietsen”  
special moped
https://www.rdw.nl/over-rdw/actueel/dossiers/bijzondere-bromfietsen
See the links in the list
Some of them are electric.
How must they fit in the access hierarchy?___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 10. Dez. 2019 um 14:41 Uhr schrieb Allroads :

> multi_tracked_motor_vehicle, solve the problem of abusive use of motorcar,
> which is a personal car. Not a total group of vehicles on two wheels.
> Major
> hierarchy impact for routing systems.
>


it really depends. I guess we agree that the meaning of tags in OSM is
based on their common usage, so motorcar=yes means an automobile (i.e. not
including for example busses or trucks), while motorcar=no means any
multi-tracked motorized vehicle is excluded (implies hgv=no,
tourist_bus=no, etc.). This is based on the legal meaning of the common
traffic signs that get translated into this tag (and may be different in
some jurisdictions, I am only referring to places I know, i.e. western /
central Europe).

The wiki has also a hint on this (look for "motorcar"):
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Allroads]

Together with the introduction of the new tag, would it also be possible to 
have a new access category tag that contains all singe-tracked motorized 
vehicles?


The hierarchy in access is important, very important for routing. (their 
scripts). Changing, hierarchy have a major impact!!

The hierarchy in a diagram.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/thumb/c/c5/Access_hierarchy_simple2.png/794px-Access_hierarchy_simple2.png 
From German access page.


Now, where does it fit in.
Speedpedelec

Laws in countries are different.
Does the speedpedelec gets its own icon by law, a own prohibition sign, or 
is it just text at a undersign.


A undersign often tells by text or icon, that the above sign, leading sign, 
the rule for a group "does or does not" not apply to those mentioned on the 
bottom plate (undersign).
The conclusion is that the mentioned is part of the category mentionedon the 
leading sign (prohibition sign)


Netherlands 
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/bijzondere-voertuigen/vraag-en-antwoord/welke-regels-gelden-voor-speed-pedelec
A yellow plate is a moped plate, so in the hierarchy the speedpedelec is a 
moped and then The Netherlands it is under de "bromfiets" moped icon in 
access.

oneway:moped=no in the Netherlands, also applies to the speedpedelec,

If you want a single_tracked_motor_vehicle, the logic says then there is 
also a double_tracked_motor_vehicle, long name dt_motor_verhicle.

double_tracked_motor_vehicle os probably not right.
Laws often speak about "more then two wheels" or "more then one tracked 
vehicles, a treewheeler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-wheeler, then a 
tag like multi_tracked_motor_vehicle or mt_motor_vehicle would be 
appropriate.
multi_tracked_motor_vehicle, solve the problem of abusive use of motorcar, 
which is a personal car. Not a total group of vehicles on two wheels. Major 
hierarchy impact for routing systems.
Back to single_tracked_motor_vehicle, st_motor_vehicle, this also means a 
motorcycle, this key is good for inclusive motorcycle.

motor_vehicle, include always, moped, mofa, motorcycle, and much more, also
We also have disabled vehicles, like a wheelchair, but also motorized 
disabled vehicle, which are not a "bromfiets" moped. " RFC - Small electric 
vehicles" also included?
Then you get disabled_vehicle and also disabled_motor_vehicle. Al must fit 
in the hierarchy of access.

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/bijzondere-voertuigen/vraag-en-antwoord/wat-zijn-de-verkeersregels-voor-een-gehandicaptenvoertuig-met-een-motor
These categories are mentioned on prohibitions traffic_signs C13 C15 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/NL:Overzicht_Nederlandse_Verkeersborden#C:_Geslotenverklaring


Find out in which countries a speedpedelec is a moped, where not, how this 
must be placed in the access diagram.


C12 tagging: motor_vehicle=no & motorcycle=yes & moped=yes & mofa=yes & 
traffic_sign=NL:C6
The problem is the needed opposite tagging, to exclude from motor_vehicle, a 
multi_tracked_motor_vehicle would be welcome.
Now we see, that often for small groups categories the tagging is not 
correct. A negative effect for those. Better to avoid "these needed 
opposite" tagging.
This argument gives impulse to use good overthought collective categories, 
such as dt_motor_vehicle, st_motor_vehicles.


A group for moped and mofa, difficult, these are 
low_speed_single_tracked_motor_vehicle. lsst_motor_vehicle. Just a thought.


Overall it is not easy to place new categories in the middle of the access 
diagram.

This have a major impact in routing scripts.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 10. Dez. 2019 um 13:53 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt :

> ... and in Italy you would have to group the latter three together and
> send them on the road. Only bicycles and pedelecs, but not S-pedelecs can
> use cycleways. And then there are cities that allow e-scooters on
> cycleways, and others that don't.
>


What do you suggest? Mapping individual access on ways, or try to inherit
from polygons? If we can agree on the classes (and identifiers for them),
that may be needed, it seems better to use different tags for each class,
just as we already do for motorbikes, mopeds, mofas, bicycles etc.
Automatic "grouping" seems complicated, and with different groups in
different cities, regions or countries, it would make mapping much more
complex when you're not at home.

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Volker Schmidt]

... and in Italy you would have to group the latter three together and send
them on the road. Only bicycles and pedelecs, but not S-pedelecs can use
cycleways. And then there are cities that allow e-scooters on cycleways,
and others that don't.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2019, 12:15 s8evq,  wrote:

> Together with the introduction of the new tag, would it also be possible
> to have a new access category tag that contains all singe-tracked motorized
> vehicles?
>
> Or perhaps an access category that combines moped and mofa?
>
> Use case: If there's a oneway street in Belgium where bicycles,
> speedpedelecs, mofa and mopeds can enter both ways, we have to tag it with
> this:
>
> oneway=yes oneway:bicycle=no oneway:moped=no oneway:mofa=no
> oneway:speedpedelec=no
>
> On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 12:09:13 +0100, Jan Michel 
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the details in the Belgian law!
> >
> > On 22.11.19 19:17, s8evq wrote:
> > > We currently have Class A (mofa, up to 25 km/h). Class B (moped up to
> 45 km/h) and now Class P (speed pedelec up to 45 km / h).
> > >
> > > Some examples:
> > >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:C3_met_jaagpad_met_uitzondering_voor_speed_pedelecs.png
> > > Class A (mofa) and P (speedpedelec) allowed, not B (moped)
> > >
> > >
> > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/4/44/M11NL.png
> > > This sign makes an exception for regular bicycle and speed pedelecs in
> for example one way streets, but not for mofa or mopeds.
> > Thanks for these links, let me add this to the list of examples.
> >
> > >
> > > So in Belgium, I think we do need a specific access tag for speed
> pedelecs. People have been using moped_p=* for a while now, but this never
> went through the proposal process.
> >
> > To summarize, there is a special class for speed pedelecs, called
> > moped_p at the moment. This term seems to be used only in Belgian law,
> > but not in other countries. I would opt to change it for an equally
> > unique, but globally usable tag like the proposed 'speed_pedelec'. This
> > keeps the interpretation of data much simpler, even if there are some
> > country-specific details in the definition of this class.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[s8evq]

Together with the introduction of the new tag, would it also be possible to 
have a new access category tag that contains all singe-tracked motorized 
vehicles?

Or perhaps an access category that combines moped and mofa? 

Use case: If there's a oneway street in Belgium where bicycles, speedpedelecs, 
mofa and mopeds can enter both ways, we have to tag it with this:

oneway=yes oneway:bicycle=no oneway:moped=no oneway:mofa=no 
oneway:speedpedelec=no

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 12:09:13 +0100, Jan Michel  wrote:

> Thanks for the details in the Belgian law!
> 
> On 22.11.19 19:17, s8evq wrote:
> > We currently have Class A (mofa, up to 25 km/h). Class B (moped up to 45 
> > km/h) and now Class P (speed pedelec up to 45 km / h).
> > 
> > Some examples:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:C3_met_jaagpad_met_uitzondering_voor_speed_pedelecs.png
> > Class A (mofa) and P (speedpedelec) allowed, not B (moped)
> > 
> > 
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/4/44/M11NL.png
> > This sign makes an exception for regular bicycle and speed pedelecs in for 
> > example one way streets, but not for mofa or mopeds.
> Thanks for these links, let me add this to the list of examples.
> 
> > 
> > So in Belgium, I think we do need a specific access tag for speed pedelecs. 
> > People have been using moped_p=* for a while now, but this never went 
> > through the proposal process.
> 
> To summarize, there is a special class for speed pedelecs, called 
> moped_p at the moment. This term seems to be used only in Belgian law, 
> but not in other countries. I would opt to change it for an equally 
> unique, but globally usable tag like the proposed 'speed_pedelec'. This 
> keeps the interpretation of data much simpler, even if there are some 
> country-specific details in the definition of this class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Jan Michel]

Thanks for the details in the Belgian law!

On 22.11.19 19:17, s8evq wrote:

We currently have Class A (mofa, up to 25 km/h). Class B (moped up to 45 km/h) 
and now Class P (speed pedelec up to 45 km / h).

Some examples:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:C3_met_jaagpad_met_uitzondering_voor_speed_pedelecs.png
Class A (mofa) and P (speedpedelec) allowed, not B (moped)


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/4/44/M11NL.png
This sign makes an exception for regular bicycle and speed pedelecs in for 
example one way streets, but not for mofa or mopeds.

Thanks for these links, let me add this to the list of examples.



So in Belgium, I think we do need a specific access tag for speed pedelecs. 
People have been using moped_p=* for a while now, but this never went through 
the proposal process.


To summarize, there is a special class for speed pedelecs, called 
moped_p at the moment. This term seems to be used only in Belgian law, 
but not in other countries. I would opt to change it for an equally 
unique, but globally usable tag like the proposed 'speed_pedelec'. This 
keeps the interpretation of data much simpler, even if there are some 
country-specific details in the definition of this class.





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Max]

On 22.11.19 20:52, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 22. Nov 2019, at 19:18, s8evq  wrote:

So in Belgium, I think we do need a specific access tag for speed pedelecs. 
People have been using moped_p=* for a while now, but this never went through 
the proposal process.



are there specific traffic signs for P e-bikes, or do they have to adhere to 
moped access restrictions?


Example for S-Pedelec signage in Germany:
http://extraenergy.org/main.php?language=de=information==100243


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[s8evq]

Yes, there are specific traffic signs for class P (speed pedelecs). They are 
shown in the links I added:

Some examples:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:C3_met_jaagpad_met_uitzondering_voor_speed_pedelecs.png
Class A (mofa) and P (speedpedelec) allowed, not B (moped)


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/4/44/M11NL.png
This sign makes an exception for regular bicycle and speed pedelecs in for 
example one way streets, but not for mofa or mopeds.


And some more examples:
https://static.standaard.be/Assets/Images_Upload/2017/07/13/speedpedelec.jpg

https://radio2.be/sites/default/files/styles/1200x630/public/2019-10/speed%20pedelc%20inge%203%20.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcRDFYs-yPCndRYU7WIwVI_lcuaOU96jeOl5smVz3IKFVp4AOQLZ


On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 20:52:29 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer 
 wrote:

> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
> > On 22. Nov 2019, at 19:18, s8evq  wrote:
> > 
> > So in Belgium, I think we do need a specific access tag for speed pedelecs. 
> > People have been using moped_p=* for a while now, but this never went 
> > through the proposal process.
> 
> 
> are there specific traffic signs for P e-bikes, or do they have to adhere to 
> moped access restrictions?
> 
> Cheers Martin 
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. Nov 2019, at 19:18, s8evq  wrote:
> 
> So in Belgium, I think we do need a specific access tag for speed pedelecs. 
> People have been using moped_p=* for a while now, but this never went through 
> the proposal process.


are there specific traffic signs for P e-bikes, or do they have to adhere to 
moped access restrictions?

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[s8evq]

On Sun Nov 10 21:09:26 UTC 2019 Volker Schmidt  wrote:

> In most EEU counties I believe pedelecs are treated like bicycles and
> S-pedelecs as mofas or light motorcycles. So for these two vehicles we do
> not need new access tags. They are covered by existing tags.

I don't think this is always true. In Belgium, we have distinctly different 
access tags for the speed pedelecs (electrically powered bicycles with speed up 
to 45 km/h) in the law. It's indicated on traffic signs with the letter P. 

We currently have Class A (mofa, up to 25 km/h). Class B (moped up to 45 km/h) 
and now Class P (speed pedelec up to 45 km / h). 

Some examples:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:C3_met_jaagpad_met_uitzondering_voor_speed_pedelecs.png
Class A (mofa) and P (speedpedelec) allowed, not B (moped)


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/4/44/M11NL.png
This sign makes an exception for regular bicycle and speed pedelecs in for 
example one way streets, but not for mofa or mopeds.

So in Belgium, I think we do need a specific access tag for speed pedelecs. 
People have been using moped_p=* for a while now, but this never went through 
the proposal process.





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Jan Michel]

On 11.11.19 09:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


if the vehicle class is treated exactly like another one (e.g. pedelec 
like a bicycle), I agree there is no need to add an extra key for it, on 
the contrary you should not do it (don't tag your local legislation). If 
there are differences, we should have a key for every class that makes a 
difference (this is how we usually do it with access-tags).


Hi,
I added a section "When NOT to use" - I hope this addresses your 
concerns about redundant tagging.


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ElectricBicyclesAndScooters#Where_to_use



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Colin Smale]

On 2019-11-11 09:47, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Jan Michel : 
> 
>> On 11.11.19 01:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>> I generally agree with your remarks, just here I would like to point out 
>>> that there aren't any scooters in the "mofa"-class (AFAIK, not limited 
>>> to Piaggio Vespas), (motorized) scooters begin in the moped class.
>> 
>> Many of them can be ordered with a reduced maximum speed to be driven 
>> with a 'mofa' license.
> 
> you're right, sorry, seems I'm living for too long time away from Germany now 
> to have a good idea about the current situation. In many (most?) countries, 
> there isn't a mofa class at all, and you may not even need a driving license 
> for the bigger 50ccm class. For example there is no EU-vehicle class for 
> Mofas, it's a German specialty: 
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EG-Fahrzeugklasse#Klasse_L

And Dutch (snorfiets/bromfiets), and Belgian (klasse A/klasse B)... More
widespread than you think...___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Jan Michel]

On 11.11.19 09:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
if the vehicle class is treated exactly like another one (e.g. pedelec 
like a bicycle), I agree there is no need to add an extra key for it, on 
the contrary you should not do it (don't tag your local legislation). If 
there are differences, we should have a key for every class that makes a 
difference (this is how we usually do it with access-tags).


I agree that we should not use this as an additional access tag, in 
cases where there is no difference to a regular bicycle.
But a tag like this is needed in combination with shops and amenities. 
The proposal aims not only at access tags, but also at all the other 
usages of "vehicle type" tags - and when it comes to shops and workshops 
there is a real difference. Not every place sells and services all kinds.



we do not need to add those "electric" to any of these classes as long 
as it doesn't matter for the access restriction whether the motor is 
combustion or electrical. 
Traffic laws do already distinguish between electrical and other 
vehicles. We have to be able to map this difference. But this is not 
part of my current proposal.



it doesn't help if a tag is in widespread use when the meaning is 
unclear. IMHO we should discourage the term even if it is widely used.
Agreed. But we can't discourage this tag if we don't have a better one 
to replace it.



Jan


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 2:41 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 09:28 Uhr schrieb Jan Michel  >:
>
>> I don't really like the idea to introduce both 'electric_bicycle' as a
>> generic term and 'pedelec', 'speed_pedelec' as more narrow tags in case
>> we need to be specific.
>>
>
>
> if the vehicle class is treated exactly like another one (e.g. pedelec
> like a bicycle), I agree there is no need to add an extra key for it, on
> the contrary you should not do it (don't tag your local legislation). If
> there are differences, we should have a key for every class that makes a
> difference (this is how we usually do it with access-tags).
>

Be aware that it's pretty typical in North America for pedelecs to be
considered as motor vehicles and excluded from bicycle facilities as such
when using their motor.  We have the Chinese pump-and-dump rental trash
scooter model to thank for this.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 09:37 Uhr schrieb Jan Michel :

> On 11.11.19 01:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > I generally agree with your remarks, just here I would like to point out
> > that there aren’t any scooters in the “mofa”-class (AFAIK, not limited
> > to Piaggio Vespas), (motorized) scooters begin in the moped class.
>
> Many of them can be ordered with a reduced maximum speed to be driven
> with a 'mofa' license.



you're right, sorry, seems I'm living for too long time away from Germany
now to have a good idea about the current situation. In many (most?)
countries, there isn't a mofa class at all, and you may not even need a
driving license for the bigger 50ccm class. For example there is no
EU-vehicle class for Mofas, it's a German specialty:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/EG-Fahrzeugklasse#Klasse_L

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 11. Nov. 2019 um 09:28 Uhr schrieb Jan Michel :

> I don't really like the idea to introduce both 'electric_bicycle' as a
> generic term and 'pedelec', 'speed_pedelec' as more narrow tags in case
> we need to be specific.
>


if the vehicle class is treated exactly like another one (e.g. pedelec like
a bicycle), I agree there is no need to add an extra key for it, on the
contrary you should not do it (don't tag your local legislation). If there
are differences, we should have a key for every class that makes a
difference (this is how we usually do it with access-tags).


>
> > "scooter" is problematic as it has many different types of uses.
> >
> >   * The first vehicle type that comes in mind as "scooters" are Vespa
> > scooters that come with different motorizations and therefore can
> > fall in different categories  from mofa to motorcycle.
> Exactly - that's why I kept them outside of this proposal. If we get to
> larger vehicles, tagging gets more and more complicated due to the vast
> amount of vehicle classes that exist. We need a more generic tagging
> scheme to add the feature 'electric' to any of these classes, but this
> will need a lot more discussion.
>


we do not need to add those "electric" to any of these classes as long as
it doesn't matter for the access restriction whether the motor is
combustion or electrical. There's to keep in mind that there may be
different restrictions or permissions not only according to traffic law but
also according to other regulations or more generally based on the context
(private rules on private ground), e.g. vehicles with combustion motors
might be disallowed in some indoor spaces (exhaust fumes, noise etc.) while
electrial may be allowed.



> > Hence the keys "scooter" and "electric_scooter" are out for me.
> I'm aware of this ambiguity. However, the term 'scooter' is already
> widespread as a tag. If you have a better name, I'm happy to change it.
>


it doesn't help if a tag is in widespread use when the meaning is unclear.
IMHO we should discourage the term even if it is widely used.

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Jan Michel]

On 11.11.19 01:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
I generally agree with your remarks, just here I would like to point out 
that there aren’t any scooters in the “mofa”-class (AFAIK, not limited 
to Piaggio Vespas), (motorized) scooters begin in the moped class.


Many of them can be ordered with a reduced maximum speed to be driven 
with a 'mofa' license.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Jan Michel]

Thanks for the comments, Volker!

On 10.11.19 22:09, Volker Schmidt wrote:

Looked at the proposal.

It's a spiny set of issues.

I would discourage electrical_bicycle as this is form the start 
ambiguous in many jurisdictions: both pedelecs and S-pedelecs are 
electric bicycles and in many jurisdictions these two are treated very 
differently.
I asked several international OSM contributors about the term 'pedelec' 
and it turned out this term isn't as widespread as it seemed to me. Most 
people were familiar with 'electric bicycle' but didn't hear the word 
'pedelec' before.
I don't really like the idea to introduce both 'electric_bicycle' as a 
generic term and 'pedelec', 'speed_pedelec' as more narrow tags in case 
we need to be specific.


In most EEU counties I believe pedelecs are treated like bicycles and 
S-pedelecs as mofas or light motorcycles. So for these two vehicles we 
do not need new access tags. They are covered by existing tags.
Correct. At this moment I didn't encounter any specific rules for these 
vehicles. Some legislature will for sure come up with them pretty soon...




"scooter" is problematic as it has many different types of uses.

  * The first vehicle type that comes in mind as "scooters" are Vespa
scooters that come with different motorizations and therefore can
fall in different categories  from mofa to motorcycle.
Exactly - that's why I kept them outside of this proposal. If we get to 
larger vehicles, tagging gets more and more complicated due to the vast 
amount of vehicle classes that exist. We need a more generic tagging 
scheme to add the feature 'electric' to any of these classes, but this 
will need a lot more discussion.



  * Then here motor-less "kick-scooters"
  * And then there are "electrical scooters", for which I believe many
countries have not yet developed rules.

Hence the keys "scooter" and "electric_scooter" are out for me.
I'm aware of this ambiguity. However, the term 'scooter' is already 
widespread as a tag. If you have a better name, I'm happy to change it.




The above argumentation is about the legal access use.



However it could be argued that for tag classifiers the story is different:
e.g. "service:electric_bicycle="seems to be a perfect description for 
places that service electrical-bicycle-like vehicles, i.e. pedelecs and 
S pedelecs and electricalscooters.

That's exactly where I currently see most use of these tags.

Jan


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Nov 2019, at 22:10, Volker Schmidt  wrote:
> 
> The first vehicle type that comes in mind as "scooters" are Vespa scooters 
> that come with different motorizations and therefore can fall in different 
> categories  from mofa to motorcycle.


I generally agree with your remarks, just here I would like to point out that 
there aren’t any scooters in the “mofa”-class (AFAIK, not limited to Piaggio 
Vespas), (motorized) scooters begin in the moped class.

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Small electric vehicles

[Volker Schmidt]

Looked at the proposal.

It's a spiny set of issues.

I would discourage electrical_bicycle as this is form the start ambiguous
in many jurisdictions: both pedelecs and S-pedelecs are electric bicycles
and in many jurisdictions these two are treated very differently.

In most EEU counties I believe pedelecs are treated like bicycles and
S-pedelecs as mofas or light motorcycles. So for these two vehicles we do
not need new access tags. They are covered by existing tags.

"scooter" is problematic as it has many different types of uses.

   - The first vehicle type that comes in mind as "scooters" are Vespa
   scooters that come with different motorizations and therefore can fall in
   different categories  from mofa to motorcycle.
   - Then here motor-less "kick-scooters"
   - And then there are "electrical scooters", for which I believe many
   countries have not yet developed rules.

Hence the keys "scooter" and "electric_scooter" are out for me.

The above argumentation is about the legal access use.
However it could be argued that for tag classifiers the story is different:
e.g. "service:electric_bicycle=" seems to be a perfect description for
places that service electrical-bicycle-like vehicles, i.e. pedelecs and S
pedelecs and electrical scooters.






On Sun, 10 Nov 2019 at 18:06, Jan Michel  wrote:

> Hi,
> up to now we don't have documented tags for small electric vehicles like
> bicycles and scooters. On the other hand, special access rules and
> amenities become more and more common.
>
> These new keys are not only necessary for access tags, but also intended
> for use with any other kind of amenity like parking, shops, service,
> charging...
>
> I wrote a proposal [1] to define common keywords for these vehicles.
> Please let me know your opinion and further suggestions!
>
>
> Jan
>
>
> [1]
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ElectricBicyclesAndScooters
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging