Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
2012/5/31 Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk: On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 14:41 +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote: 2012/5/31 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17530125 (lorry stuck on very tight corner) This is tagged hgv=unsuitable in OSM http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/69590803 In my opinion this doesn't need a special tag. Because the geometry of the way (together with the tag width, if necessary) should carry enough information. Where there is signage stating 'Un-suitable For HGV', then the tag is valid and should be used, as should 'Un-suitable For Motors', although there are a few that I doubt the validity of. A couple of Google examples http://goo.gl/maps/JoD9 and http://goo.gl/maps/LCw9. I love the 2nd, 'Unsuitable For Motors' combined with NSL. Thanks for the examples. I wasn't aware that some real signposts exists for this. So actually we would need two values: * unsuitable: if you are allowed to drive/go there, but you most certainly are not able to * discouraged: if you are able to drive/go there, you are also allowed to, but you should not The value discouraged would be the correct one for Rob's second example (the UK cycle paths). The value unsuitable would fit your example (Unsuitable for motor vehicles). But we have to make sure, that this values are only applied if real indications (e.g. signposts) are present and not e.g. if one just thinks that some vehicle can not drive there. Also for most data consumers (I guess) there wouldn't be any difference between unsuitable and no. The value discouraged might be used for routers to add some penalty to a way. Any more opinions on this? regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
When a UK sign says unsuitable for motor vehicles or unsuitable for HGVs it means discouraged in your terms. There is no guarantee that you *will* get into problems, but it is just a strong warning. A road that becomes a muddy track might present a problem for a normal car, but a trial bike or a tractor would be fine. The warning is probably not enforceable, i.e. if you ignore it you couldn't get a ticket for that fact alone; luckily for many drivers it's not illegal to be an idiot. So if the word unsuitable has the above semantics in normal use, it would make sense to me to call it unsuitable in the tagging instead of discouraged and using unsuitable to mean something else. How about unsuitable (i.e. preferably not) and impassable (i.e. don't even think about it)? Colin On 01/06/2012 09:09, Martin Vonwald wrote: 2012/5/31 Philip Barnesp...@trigpoint.me.uk: On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 14:41 +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote: 2012/5/31 Richard Mannrichard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17530125 (lorry stuck on very tight corner) This is tagged hgv=unsuitable in OSM http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/69590803 In my opinion this doesn't need a special tag. Because the geometry of the way (together with the tag width, if necessary) should carry enough information. Where there is signage stating 'Un-suitable For HGV', then the tag is valid and should be used, as should 'Un-suitable For Motors', although there are a few that I doubt the validity of. A couple of Google examples http://goo.gl/maps/JoD9 and http://goo.gl/maps/LCw9. I love the 2nd, 'Unsuitable For Motors' combined with NSL. Thanks for the examples. I wasn't aware that some real signposts exists for this. So actually we would need two values: * unsuitable: if you are allowed to drive/go there, but you most certainly are not able to * discouraged: if you are able to drive/go there, you are also allowed to, but you should not The value discouraged would be the correct one for Rob's second example (the UK cycle paths). The value unsuitable would fit your example (Unsuitable for motor vehicles). But we have to make sure, that this values are only applied if real indications (e.g. signposts) are present and not e.g. if one just thinks that some vehicle can not drive there. Also for most data consumers (I guess) there wouldn't be any difference between unsuitable and no. The value discouraged might be used for routers to add some penalty to a way. Any more opinions on this? regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
2012/6/1 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: When a UK sign says unsuitable for motor vehicles or unsuitable for HGVs it means discouraged in your terms. There is no guarantee that you *will* get into problems, but it is just a strong warning. A road that becomes a muddy track might present a problem for a normal car, but a trial bike or a tractor would be fine. The warning is probably not enforceable, i.e. if you ignore it you couldn't get a ticket for that fact alone; luckily for many drivers it's not illegal to be an idiot. So if the word unsuitable has the above semantics in normal use, it would make sense to me to call it unsuitable in the tagging instead of discouraged and using unsuitable to mean something else. How about unsuitable (i.e. preferably not) and impassable (i.e. don't even think about it)? So what you mean is: * unsuitable: allowed: yes, possible: may be not * impassable: allowed: yes, possible: most certainly not Correct? When I read this, I have to admit: this doesn't sound like something that belongs into an access tag any more to me. When you wrote impassable I immediately thought about the smoothness-key, which provides a classification scheme regarding the physical usability of a way for wheeled vehicles. Despite the name smoothness it might fit the purpose if combined with the vehicle type, e.g. smoothness:hgv=impassable . But I'm not really convinced of it myself. Or maybe another key like e.g. passable? Extendible with a vehicle type and with (more or less) the same values as smoothness. So unsuitable would translate to passable:vehicle=bad and impassable to passable:vehicle=impassable. Martin * passable:vehicle= ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
On 1 June 2012 08:09, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: But we have to make sure, that this values are only applied if real indications (e.g. signposts) are present and not e.g. if one just thinks that some vehicle can not drive there. The example given is within the UK. Within the UK signs or signposts haver no 'status' unless they're listed within official documents and linked to legislation. I am confident this unsuitable for HGVs sign has no legislative status. It's existence may be due to local residents asking their local politician to find a way to 'stop' HGV's following satnavs down this road because the noise reduces they're enjoyment of their evening cocktails (Very unlikely, but a possibility). Therefore it's more than possible that an 'unsuitable status sign' may refer to a road that is very suitable. People or business will place signs adjacent to UK roads in rural areas which attempt to alter the actions of drivers, and we should not map these. In this instance the 'unsuitability' should be derived by OSM end users though other tags, such as 'width' 'lanes' 'surface' 'children_play_here' 'local_resident_doesnt_like_big_HGVs'? All the above does not mean that I believe 'unsuitable' tag has no place within OSM. Jason ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
On 01/06/2012 14:19, Jason Cunningham wrote: On 1 June 2012 08:09, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com mailto:imagic@gmail.com wrote: But we have to make sure, that this values are only applied if real indications (e.g. signposts) are present and not e.g. if one just thinks that some vehicle can not drive there. The example given is within the UK. Within the UK signs or signposts haver no 'status' unless they're listed within official documents and linked to legislation. I am confident this unsuitable for HGVs sign has no legislative status. It's existence may be due to local residents asking their local politician to find a way to 'stop' HGV's following satnavs down this road because the noise reduces they're enjoyment of their evening cocktails (Very unlikely, but a possibility). Therefore it's more than possible that an 'unsuitable status sign' may refer to a road that is very suitable. People or business will place signs adjacent to UK roads in rural areas which attempt to alter the actions of drivers, and we should not map these. And if these signs are placed by the highway authority? I think these most definitely do have a place in OSM. It's then up to the data consumers whether they attach any value to them. By making the data available, we are enabling e.g. HGV routing programs to take these hints into account. Without these hints, trucks may be directed down unsuitable routes. The political process leading to their erection is not important - only their existence. Political pressure has a large influence on speed limits as well. In this instance the 'unsuitability' should be derived by OSM end users though other tags, such as 'width' 'lanes' 'surface' 'children_play_here' 'local_resident_doesnt_like_big_HGVs'? All the above does not mean that I believe 'unsuitable' tag has no place within OSM. Jason ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
Am 01.06.2012 um 15:01 schrieb Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: On 01/06/2012 14:19, Jason Cunningham wrote: On 1 June 2012 08:09, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: But we have to make sure, that this values are only applied if real indications (e.g. signposts) are present and not e.g. if one just thinks that some vehicle can not drive there. The example given is within the UK. Within the UK signs or signposts haver no 'status' unless they're listed within official documents and linked to legislation. I am confident this unsuitable for HGVs sign has no legislative status. It's existence may be due to local residents asking their local politician to find a way to 'stop' HGV's following satnavs down this road because the noise reduces they're enjoyment of their evening cocktails (Very unlikely, but a possibility). Therefore it's more than possible that an 'unsuitable status sign' may refer to a road that is very suitable. People or business will place signs adjacent to UK roads in rural areas which attempt to alter the actions of drivers, and we should not map these. And if these signs are placed by the highway authority? I think these most definitely do have a place in OSM. It's then up to the data consumers whether they attach any value to them. By making the data available, we are enabling e.g. HGV routing programs to take these hints into account. Without these hints, trucks may be directed down unsuitable routes. The political process leading to their erection is not important - only their existence. Political pressure has a large influence on speed limits as well. You are both correct in my opinion. As I wrote earlier this doesn't feel like something that belongs into an access tag to me especially as you are still allowed to use that specific way. But if those signs have some official character they should have a place in OSM. What do you think about using some other key for this? Martin___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 19:02 +0200, Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote: Am 01.06.2012 um 15:01 schrieb Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: On 01/06/2012 14:19, Jason Cunningham wrote: On 1 June 2012 08:09, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: But we have to make sure, that this values are only applied if real indications (e.g. signposts) are present and not e.g. if one just thinks that some vehicle can not drive there. The example given is within the UK. Within the UK signs or signposts haver no 'status' unless they're listed within official documents and linked to legislation. I am confident this unsuitable for HGVs sign has no legislative status. It's existence may be due to local residents asking their local politician to find a way to 'stop' HGV's following satnavs down this road because the noise reduces they're enjoyment of their evening cocktails (Very unlikely, but a possibility). Therefore it's more than possible that an 'unsuitable status sign' may refer to a road that is very suitable. People or business will place signs adjacent to UK roads in rural areas which attempt to alter the actions of drivers, and we should not map these. And if these signs are placed by the highway authority? I think these most definitely do have a place in OSM. It's then up to the data consumers whether they attach any value to them. By making the data available, we are enabling e.g. HGV routing programs to take these hints into account. Without these hints, trucks may be directed down unsuitable routes. The political process leading to their erection is not important - only their existence. Political pressure has a large influence on speed limits as well. You are both correct in my opinion. As I wrote earlier this doesn't feel like something that belongs into an access tag to me especially as you are still allowed to use that specific way. But if those signs have some official character they should have a place in OSM. What do you think about using some other key for this? The blue 'Unsuitable for HGVS' and 'Unsuitable for Motors' signs are placed by the highway authority, i.e. local councils, which maintain all UK roads except for Trunk roads and Motorways. They do not prohibit vehicles from using the roads, and certainly with the 'Unsuitable for Motors' usability will depend on all sorts of things, such as type of vehicle, ground clearance, skill of the driver, the weather and recent weather. A 4x4 will usually be ok, and a low ground clearance Ferrari will struggle with many roads a normal car will clear easily. But I can think of at least one that is probably there so noisy cars don't spoil the summer cocktails as I can see nothing along that (single track road) that makes it unsuitable or in any way difficult, or any more difficult than any of the others in this area. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
Here's an example of the same type of sign in Australia http://goo.gl/maps/Pao1 Stephen On 2 June 2012 05:20, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 19:02 +0200, Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote: Am 01.06.2012 um 15:01 schrieb Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: On 01/06/2012 14:19, Jason Cunningham wrote: On 1 June 2012 08:09, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: But we have to make sure, that this values are only applied if real indications (e.g. signposts) are present and not e.g. if one just thinks that some vehicle can not drive there. The example given is within the UK. Within the UK signs or signposts haver no 'status' unless they're listed within official documents and linked to legislation. I am confident this unsuitable for HGVs sign has no legislative status. It's existence may be due to local residents asking their local politician to find a way to 'stop' HGV's following satnavs down this road because the noise reduces they're enjoyment of their evening cocktails (Very unlikely, but a possibility). Therefore it's more than possible that an 'unsuitable status sign' may refer to a road that is very suitable. People or business will place signs adjacent to UK roads in rural areas which attempt to alter the actions of drivers, and we should not map these. And if these signs are placed by the highway authority? I think these most definitely do have a place in OSM. It's then up to the data consumers whether they attach any value to them. By making the data available, we are enabling e.g. HGV routing programs to take these hints into account. Without these hints, trucks may be directed down unsuitable routes. The political process leading to their erection is not important - only their existence. Political pressure has a large influence on speed limits as well. You are both correct in my opinion. As I wrote earlier this doesn't feel like something that belongs into an access tag to me especially as you are still allowed to use that specific way. But if those signs have some official character they should have a place in OSM. What do you think about using some other key for this? The blue 'Unsuitable for HGVS' and 'Unsuitable for Motors' signs are placed by the highway authority, i.e. local councils, which maintain all UK roads except for Trunk roads and Motorways. They do not prohibit vehicles from using the roads, and certainly with the 'Unsuitable for Motors' usability will depend on all sorts of things, such as type of vehicle, ground clearance, skill of the driver, the weather and recent weather. A 4x4 will usually be ok, and a low ground clearance Ferrari will struggle with many roads a normal car will clear easily. But I can think of at least one that is probably there so noisy cars don't spoil the summer cocktails as I can see nothing along that (single track road) that makes it unsuitable or in any way difficult, or any more difficult than any of the others in this area. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 09:08 +1000, Stephen Hope wrote: Here's an example of the same type of sign in Australia http://goo.gl/maps/Pao1 That looks more like a prohibited sign, rather than advisory. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
2012/5/30 Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com: There seems to be a need for a new value for the access tags. The new value would indicate that the way can be used (as it is not illegal / prohibited), but it is advised to use a different route. This is a feature often talked about (suggested routes), which might be suitable for OSM or not (I guess most of the mappers actually consider this not suitable because advices are a matter of subjective judgement and interpretation). It is definitely nothing to store in an access-value, as access if for legal accessibility _only_. If you wanted to tag non-suitability you should use another namespace/tag (additionally). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
Thanks Martin, Maybe I wasn't very clear in my first email (not helped by poor formatting), but I'm not looking to add a suggested route. I am trying to indicate cases that have legal binding (or very strong advice from government). For example: 1. A road in Germany should not be used by cyclists if there is a cycle track next to the road UNLESS the cycle track is not passable, etc. 2. A cycle track in UK that is marked as cycle only does not legally prevent pedestrian use but official guidance states: the route is not intended for pedestrians, there should be a convenient footway or footpath nearby. I see that something like alternative may end up being used for suggested routes, but is there any other (potential new) values for the access tag that may help here? RobJN 2012/5/30 Rob Nickerson rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging: *** There seems to be a need for a new value for the access tags. The new value** would indicate that the way can be used (as it is not illegal / prohibited),** but it is advised to use a different route.* This is a feature often talked about (suggested routes), which might be suitable for OSM or not (I guess most of the mappers actually consider this not suitable because advices are a matter of subjective judgement and interpretation). It is definitely nothing to store in an access-value, as access if for legal accessibility _only_. If you wanted to tag non-suitability you should use another namespace/tag (additionally). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
Hi! 2012/5/31 Rob Nickerson rob.j.nicker...@gmail.com: Maybe I wasn't very clear in my first email (not helped by poor formatting), but I'm not looking to add a suggested route. I am trying to indicate cases that have legal binding (or very strong advice from government). For example: 1. A road in Germany should not be used by cyclists if there is a cycle track next to the road UNLESS the cycle track is not passable, etc. I wouldn't tag the road with anything. Simply because the rules/laws apply not to the road but to the cycleway. Any bicycle-router should prefer a cycle track (or anything with bicycle=designated) over a nearby road. 2. A cycle track in UK that is marked as cycle only does not legally prevent pedestrian use but official guidance states: the route is not intended for pedestrians, there should be a convenient footway or footpath nearby. This is another story. This restriction should be tagged directly on the cycle track. I see that something like alternative may end up being used for suggested routes, but is there any other (potential new) values for the access tag that may help here? As those are in fact legal restrictions/recommendations IMO the access key is the correct key for this. Maybe something like foot=discouraged . Native speakers are very welcome here to suggest much better values. ;-) regards, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
2012/5/31 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: 1. A road in Germany should not be used by cyclists if there is a cycle track next to the road UNLESS the cycle track is not passable, etc. I wouldn't tag the road with anything. Simply because the rules/laws apply not to the road but to the cycleway. Any bicycle-router should prefer a cycle track (or anything with bicycle=designated) over a nearby road. +1, if you wanted to be very expressive you could somehow associate the cycleway with the road. 2. A cycle track in UK that is marked as cycle only does not legally prevent pedestrian use but official guidance states: the route is not intended for pedestrians, there should be a convenient footway or footpath nearby. This is another story. This restriction should be tagged directly on the cycle track. isn't this something already expressed with bicycle=designated (and the way is in the UK. Maybe add a foot=yes if use is not legally prevented.) ? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
2012/5/31 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2012/5/31 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: 2. A cycle track in UK that is marked as cycle only does not legally prevent pedestrian use but official guidance states: the route is not intended for pedestrians, there should be a convenient footway or footpath nearby. This is another story. This restriction should be tagged directly on the cycle track. isn't this something already expressed with bicycle=designated (and the way is in the UK. Maybe add a foot=yes if use is not legally prevented.) ? Interesting point. My feeling tells me that the word designated might(!) express this. But reading the wiki about designated yields: A preferred or designated route for a specific vehicle type or types. Not compulsory but often marked by a traffic sign. This on the other hand doesn't sound like the use by other vehicles types is discouraged. So we are down to one question: does designated mean that other vehicle types are discouraged? Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17530125 (lorry stuck on very tight corner) This is tagged hgv=unsuitable in OSM http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/69590803 Maybe such tags need regularising Not sure I'd bother with cycle tracks though. Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
2012/5/31 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17530125 (lorry stuck on very tight corner) This is tagged hgv=unsuitable in OSM http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/69590803 In my opinion this doesn't need a special tag. Because the geometry of the way (together with the tag width, if necessary) should carry enough information. Maybe such tags need regularising If we need such tags, yes. Right now I'm still not 100% sure that we need these. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
On May 31, 2012 5:41 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: 2012/5/31 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17530125 (lorry stuck on very tight corner) This is tagged hgv=unsuitable in OSM http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/69590803 In my opinion this doesn't need a special tag. Because the geometry of the way (together with the tag width, if necessary) should carry enough information. Maybe such tags need regularising If we need such tags, yes. Right now I'm still not 100% sure that we need these. It would make bicycle routing easier and you wouldn't have to know the exact width of each lane and the availability of shoulders and everything else that would currently be required for an automated system to know that, say Harvard Avenue, is not a good route to take for your average person, yet readily ignorable if you're Lance Armstrong. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
2012/5/31 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: So we are down to one question: does designated mean that other vehicle types are discouraged? This might depend on the country and on the type of designation (which means of transport/type of road it is) cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
2012/5/31 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: 2012/5/31 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: So we are down to one question: does designated mean that other vehicle types are discouraged? This might depend on the country and on the type of designation (which means of transport/type of road it is) This means no. Then we definitively need a special value. Although I really would like to get some examples at first. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] New access tag value needed?
On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 14:41 +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote: 2012/5/31 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17530125 (lorry stuck on very tight corner) This is tagged hgv=unsuitable in OSM http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/69590803 In my opinion this doesn't need a special tag. Because the geometry of the way (together with the tag width, if necessary) should carry enough information. Where there is signage stating 'Un-suitable For HGV', then the tag is valid and should be used, as should 'Un-suitable For Motors', although there are a few that I doubt the validity of. A couple of Google examples http://goo.gl/maps/JoD9 and http://goo.gl/maps/LCw9. I love the 2nd, 'Unsuitable For Motors' combined with NSL. Phil Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
