Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
Dear list Im tired and muddled. I think Sebastian posted swapped the 2 issues when he posted, sorry if its my mistake Quoting fors...@ozonline.com.au: Hi Sebastian A quick reply now, its late, and maybe more considered tomorrow its tagged highway=track I can see no "access all=yes" so nothing is being asserted about the access that suits me for now as I know nothing about the track I think I can see a gate or fence, not sure, 38ð11â²52â³S, 145ð8â²22â³E -38.1976644, 145.1393379 and maybe the other end 38ð12â²12â³S, 145ð8â²3â³E -38.2032271, 145.1342893 When I load a map file on my gps unit it will show this way as accessible for me to ride based on the OSM tagging. Unless there is an explicitly tag bike=no, private or similar then it?s will still think that I can legally ride on it. I don't know if you can legally ride on it or not. I doubt that through traffic is treated differently to local, you are probably either allowed in or not. I doubt bikes are treated differently I have replied privately because you have asked privately, this stuff is OK for the list and you would get some more and probably better ideas. in summary If there are gates then your gps problem is solved no bike= tag is called for, bikes are probably the same as cars tag it private if you know it is private, don't guess If your GPS wants to send you that way its not necessarily a fault with the map Are you happy to put this on the list? Tony ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
Hi all, I see Sebastian has posted to the list now background to this: Way History: 679145843 about a year ago Sebastian had bicycle=no, highway=track as part of the DWG sanctioned revert I deleted the bicycle=no Hi Sebastian a bit more, If I wanted to add tags I would go on site have a look and do Mapillary photos. Unless there were already good photos. What I see now is a construction site at the south end with gates I think. Its a temporary construction track maybe and closed off now? No good photos at the north end. Going out on site and taking photos is time consuming but I think the map is maturing, its moved to needing quality rather than quantity. Also I want to back off slightly on my previous "tag it private if you know it is private, don't guess" You can guess a little bit but you still need to be fairly sure. Tony Yep no problem. I hadn?t realised I had replied privately. Will reply to the list. regards, Sebastian On 26 Mar 2022, at 9:39 pm, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote: ?Hi A quick reply now, its late, and maybe more considered tomorrow its tagged highway=track I can see no "access all=yes" so nothing is being asserted about the access that suits me for now as I know nothing about the track I think I can see a gate or fence, not sure, 38°11?52?S, 145°8?22?E -38.1976644, 145.1393379 and maybe the other end 38°12?12?S, 145°8?3?E -38.2032271, 145.1342893 When I load a map file on my gps unit it will show this way as accessible for me to ride based on the OSM tagging. Unless there is an explicitly tag bike=no, private or similar then it?s will still think that I can legally ride on it. I don't know if you can legally ride on it or not. I doubt that through traffic is treated differently to local, you are probably either allowed in or not. I doubt bikes are treated differently I have replied privately because you have asked privately, this stuff is OK for the list and you would get some more and probably better ideas. in summary If there are gates then your gps problem is solved no bike= tag is called for, bikes are probably the same as cars tag it private if you know it is private, don't guess If your GPS wants to send you that way its not necessarily a fault with the map Are you happy to put this on the list? Tony ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
The access tag doesn't really capture if it's private property or not. You can have private property which is open to the public, and you can have public lands closed to the public. So you can't really set the access tag just on the basis of it being private land as it all depends how it's signed or any implicit access restrictions. On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 at 16:29, Sebastian Azagra Flores wrote: > In using the tag access=permissive, how does one verify that access has > not been revoked by the owner? > In one of the changesets in question, the site clearly private property > (as it is a retirement village) > I would have thought that access=private would have been a better tag to > use in lieu of destination. > > > > > regards, > > Sebastian > > On 21 Mar 2022, at 1:44 pm, Andrew Harvey > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 10:22, wrote: > >> Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit >> traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the >> access=destination tag. >> >> Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not >> conform? >> > > See also > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Local_Traffic_Only > and the linked discussion thread. > > Those example changesets look questionable to me, but I don't have the > local knowledge. Private property open to the public is more > "access=permissive". access=destination really should only be for something > signed as not allowing through traffic. I'd suggest adding a changeset > comment to invite them here to discuss further, if you don't hear back then > I think it's reasonable to revert. > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
Hi Sebastian access=privateAccess is only with permission on an individual basis access=destinationTransit traffic forbidden access=permissive open to general traffic until such time as the owner revoke the permission My inclination is that if you are not sure, don't use the tag. Its OK to use less tags. It would be good to know which village you are referring to. In the case of Penguin Resort changeset#118193819 where I have just taken mapillary images, I think I would leave it at just highway=service and not use any of permissive, destination or private unless I had good evidence. Tony In using the tag access=permissive, how does one verify that access has not been revoked by the owner? In one of the changesets in question, the site clearly private property (as it is a retirement village) I would have thought that access=private would have been a better tag to use in lieu of destination. regards, Sebastian On 21 Mar 2022, at 1:44 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: ? On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 10:22, wrote: Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the access=destination tag. Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not conform? See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Local_Traffic_Only and the linked discussion thread. Those example changesets look questionable to me, but I don't have the local knowledge. Private property open to the public is more "access=permissive". access=destination really should only be for something signed as not allowing through traffic. I'd suggest adding a changeset comment to invite them here to discuss further, if you don't hear back then I think it's reasonable to revert. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au _ This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
In using the tag access=permissive, how does one verify that access has not been revoked by the owner? In one of the changesets in question, the site clearly private property (as it is a retirement village) I would have thought that access=private would have been a better tag to use in lieu of destination. regards, Sebastian > On 21 Mar 2022, at 1:44 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 10:22, wrote: >> Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit >> traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the >> access=destination tag. >> >> Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not >> conform? > > See also > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Local_Traffic_Only > and the linked discussion thread. > > Those example changesets look questionable to me, but I don't have the local > knowledge. Private property open to the public is more "access=permissive". > access=destination really should only be for something signed as not allowing > through traffic. I'd suggest adding a changeset comment to invite them here > to discuss further, if you don't hear back then I think it's reasonable to > revert. > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
Hi I have left a changeset comment alerting him to the talk-au discussion. Tony On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 10:22, wrote: Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the access=destination tag. Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not conform? See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Local_Traffic_Only and the linked discussion thread. Those example changesets look questionable to me, but I don't have the local knowledge. Private property open to the public is more "access=permissive". access=destination really should only be for something signed as not allowing through traffic. I'd suggest adding a changeset comment to invite them here to discuss further, if you don't hear back then I think it's reasonable to revert. _ This mail has been virus scanned by Australia On Line see http://www.australiaonline.net.au/mailscanning ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 10:22, wrote: > Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit > traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the > access=destination tag. > > Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not > conform? > See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Local_Traffic_Only and the linked discussion thread. Those example changesets look questionable to me, but I don't have the local knowledge. Private property open to the public is more "access=permissive". access=destination really should only be for something signed as not allowing through traffic. I'd suggest adding a changeset comment to invite them here to discuss further, if you don't hear back then I think it's reasonable to revert. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 11:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Personally, yes, these & similar are the only times I would use that e.g. > https://goo.gl/maps/ACMTnn6gQJTLz5NF6 (& as always, for illustration > only!) > That sign looks like hgv=no. So no heavy goods vehicles, but anyone else can use it. It's not related to the destination access value. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 09:22, wrote: > > Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit > traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the > access=destination tag. > Personally, yes, these & similar are the only times I would use that e.g. https://goo.gl/maps/ACMTnn6gQJTLz5NF6 (& as always, for illustration only!) Thanks Graeme ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
oops, forgot to add these Multiple entrances with restricting signage https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-37.83471/145.03179 (Scotch College) Multiple entrances gated and signed (Museum, Carlton Gardens) https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/209893402 Multiple entrances gatedand signed https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/753594786 (Selandra Rise Retirement Village) Hi all Up to now I have only questioned Sebastian (HighRouleur) on his information sources and reasoning on the use of access=destination First going to the wiki: "Transit traffic forbidden, all non-transit traffic to a given element allowed." But I am aware that the wiki does not trump common OSM usage so I would like to check with the community. It seems that its a nonsense to use access=destination on roads that have no connection to the rest of the world, how can you forbid what is impossible. Likewise its a nonsense for where there is one point of connection. Should the destination tag be removed from all these? Zero connections to the world https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/164040247 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/164040219 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148171270 one entrance https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/632504904 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/551195212 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/563380640 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48162492 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/176876122 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117893671 Then there are networks that connect at two or more places to the world but there is no restrictive signage. I would remove the destination tag. Two entrances and no signs https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-37.99231/145.14903 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118193819 Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the access=destination tag. Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not conform? Thanks Tony ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur
Hi all Up to now I have only questioned Sebastian (HighRouleur) on his information sources and reasoning on the use of access=destination First going to the wiki: "Transit traffic forbidden, all non-transit traffic to a given element allowed." But I am aware that the wiki does not trump common OSM usage so I would like to check with the community. It seems that its a nonsense to use access=destination on roads that have no connection to the rest of the world, how can you forbid what is impossible. Likewise its a nonsense for where there is one point of connection. Should the destination tag be removed from all these? Zero connections to the world https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/164040247 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/164040219 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148171270 one entrance https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/632504904 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/551195212 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/563380640 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48162492 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/176876122 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117893671 Then there are networks that connect at two or more places to the world but there is no restrictive signage. I would remove the destination tag. Two entrances and no signs https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-37.99231/145.14903 https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118193819 Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the access=destination tag. Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not conform? Thanks Tony ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
Posso solo ripetere quanto detto prima in questa conversazione. La situazione legale per l'accesso limitato è confuso per usare un eufemismo. Non abbiamo scelta che essere pragmatici. O, se volete, bisogna arrangiarsi: 1) Se ho una strada con divieto d'accesso veicolare (cartello rotondo bianco con bordo rosso) senza testo aggiuntivo, questo è da interpretare come accesso vietato ai veicoli motorizzati in altri paesi. Le bici possono passare de fatto. 2) Se ho lo stesso cartello con qualche testo che permette l'accesso alle case della strada, utilizziamo qualcosa come access=destination o simile 3) Se c'è lo stesso cartello con un testo aggiuntivo come salvo autorizzati - delibera della giunta comunale del 1 gennaio 1899 o simile stupidità, io metto motor_vehicle=no 2012/7/10 totera g...@hotmail.it Paolo Pozzan wrote A voler invece essere pragmatici, basta copiare da ciò che fanno gli altri =) . Sia GMaps, che Nokia Maps, che Tuttocittà ti fanno correttamente evitare la via anche se sarebbe la strada più corta, ma se la imposti come destinazione te la fanno percorrere. Ciò equivale a un access=destination. Se poi uno vuol chiedere al comune, tanto meglio. Qualsiasi mappatore di OSM potrebbe citarti decine di errori trovati su Google Maps e simili. L'approccio pragmatico semmai potrebbe essere in questo senso: se nonostante sul cartello siano citati soltanto residenti e frontisti tu sai (per esperienza, perché hai chiesto, ecc.) che il transito dei visitatori, parenti o meno, è tollerato, usa pure destination. Ripeto però che dire di usare access=destination per qualunque strada riservata ai residenti in Italia è sbagliato, pensa ad esempio ai centri storici. Ciao, Gianluca -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/access-destination-tp5715280p5715750.html Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
2012/7/10 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: Posso solo ripetere quanto detto prima in questa conversazione. La situazione legale per l'accesso limitato è confuso per usare un eufemismo. Non abbiamo scelta che essere pragmatici. O, se volete, bisogna arrangiarsi: 1) Se ho una strada con divieto d'accesso veicolare (cartello rotondo bianco con bordo rosso) senza testo aggiuntivo, questo è da interpretare come accesso vietato ai veicoli motorizzati in altri paesi. Le bici possono passare de fatto. Quello che spesso viene definito divieto di accesso si chiama, in realtà, divieto di transito e vieta il transito a tutti i veicoli, senza distinzione tra motore o meno (almeno così dice Wikipedia[1]). [1]: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segnali_di_prescrizione_nella_segnaletica_verticale_italiana#Segnali_di_divieto -- Cià Cristiano / Sky One Home: http://www.skyone.it (itinerari in moto e non solo) Pensieri: http://blog.skyone.it ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
2012/7/6 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: L'unica cosa in questo discussione che mi preoccupa veramente è l'uso del access=private perché distrugge il routing per tante ciclovie. Se sai che una strada è percorribile dalle bici, puoi (devi) aggiungere il tag specifico bicycle=yes/official/designated/permissive ecc. Un router corretto, con questa mappatura, dovrebbe ignorare il valore del tag access e invece usare il valore del tag bicycle (ovviamente se e solo se è impostato in modalità bicicletta) Se, a fronte di una mappatura access=private bicycle=yes non ti permette l'accesso in bici, il router è buggato. Ciao Federico ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
Federico, tu scrissi. Se sai che una strada è percorribile dalle bici, puoi (devi) aggiungere il tag specifico bicycle=yes/official/designated/permissive ecc. solo se non implicito nel tag utilizzato per la via. Tutti i highways di tipo primary, secondary, tertiary, unclassified, residential, track, cycleway, path includono il permesso per la bici (non se sono idonei alla bici). Il nostro problema nasce del tag access o altri tag che limitano l'accesso o a persone o a tipi di veicoli. Un router corretto, con questa mappatura, dovrebbe ignorare il valore del tag access e invece usare il valore del tag bicycle (ovviamente se e solo se è impostato in modalità bicicletta) Se, a fronte di una mappatura access=private bicycle=yes non ti permette l'accesso in bici, il router è buggato. No. Il router si comporta correttamente. Access=private vuole dire che qualsiasi persona (con o senza veicolo) ha bisogno del permesso esplicito del proprietario per accedere. Se sono in bici o meno non conta. Se la tua argomentazione fosse corretta, col tagging bicycle=yes potrei entrare, ma quando scendo dalla bici, non potrei più esserci. E' ovvio che access=private ha precedenza su qualsiasi altro tag specificando il mezzo di trasporto. Ciao Volker ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
2012/7/10 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: Posso solo ripetere quanto detto prima in questa conversazione. La situazione legale per l'accesso limitato è confuso per usare un eufemismo. Non abbiamo scelta che essere pragmatici. O, se volete, bisogna arrangiarsi: 1) Se ho una strada con divieto d'accesso veicolare (cartello rotondo bianco con bordo rosso) senza testo aggiuntivo, questo è da interpretare come accesso vietato ai veicoli motorizzati in altri paesi. Le bici possono passare de fatto. -1 le bici NON possono passare, come abbiamo già osservati nel CdS. Se poi nella realtà non succede niente, non ti multano (come non ti multano a Roma se passi con la bici sul marciapiede, sul semaforo rosso, o contro mano, o quando suoni il clacson, o quando ti metti in seconda fila, o ), comunque non deriva nessun diritto da questa non-azione da parte dei vigili (anzi, in Germania potresti dinunciare il vigile che non agisce quando vede una infrazione della legge). Il massimo che credo si potrebbe aggiungere è un bicycle=permissive (=non è un diritto e può essere revocato in qualsiasi momento). 2) Se ho lo stesso cartello con qualche testo che permette l'accesso alle case della strada, utilizziamo qualcosa come access=destination o simile quando la dicitura è ecetto residenti mettiamo meglio vehicle=private 3) Se c'è lo stesso cartello con un testo aggiuntivo come salvo autorizzati - delibera della giunta comunale del 1 gennaio 1899 o simile stupidità, io metto motor_vehicle=no io metto private. no lo metto in rari casi (terremoto, crollo, zone pericolose) con access. Qualsiasi strada fisicamente percorribile in macchina ma vietato l'accesso mettrei private e non no. La differenza tra no e private è piccola però, concordo. ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
2012/7/10 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: Se, a fronte di una mappatura access=private bicycle=yes non ti permette l'accesso in bici, il router è buggato. No. Il router si comporta correttamente. Access=private vuole dire che qualsiasi persona (con o senza veicolo) ha bisogno del permesso esplicito del proprietario per accedere. Se sono in bici o meno non conta. conta invece, il tagging più specifico prevale quello più generale. Visto che non è (sempre) chiaro che cos'è il caso più spefico in certi casi (per esempio: un caso d'uso o una classe di veicolo? Oppure alcuni classi di veicoli tra di loro), è meglio (meno ambiguo e più leggibile) non utilizzare access ma direttamente vehicle e motor_vehicle. Così si evitano anche i problemi di dimenticare qualche classe (come spesso succede con i pedoni in OSM), e il tagging rimane più sintetico (1 tag contro al meno 3 in questo caso). Se la tua argomentazione fosse corretta, col tagging bicycle=yes potrei entrare, ma quando scendo dalla bici, non potrei più esserci. si, nel suo tagging sarebbe quella la conseguenza E' ovvio che access=private ha precedenza su qualsiasi altro tag specificando il mezzo di trasporto. -1, è il contrario. ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
2012/7/10 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com -1 le bici NON possono passare, come abbiamo già osservati nel CdS. Se poi nella realtà non succede niente, non ti multano (come non ti multano a Roma se passi con la bici sul marciapiede, sul semaforo rosso, o contro mano, o quando suoni il clacson, o quando ti metti in seconda fila, o ), comunque non deriva nessun diritto da questa non-azione da parte dei vigili (anzi, in Germania potresti dinunciare il vigile che non agisce quando vede una infrazione della legge). Il massimo che credo si potrebbe aggiungere è un bicycle=permissive (=non è un diritto e può essere revocato in qualsiasi momento). Non è vero, almeno in qualche caso Perché continuate imperterriti ad ignorare la realtà dei fatti, cioè quanto ho scritto e riportato qualche giorno fa? Ci sono piste ciclabili *ufficiali* che passano su tratti arginali con segnale di divieto di transito (bianco con contorno rosso per capirci). Secondo la logica degli ultimi messaggi dovremmo inserire bicycle=no / vehicle=no / access=no? ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
On 10/07/2012 12:50, Tiziano D'Angelo wrote: Non è vero, almeno in qualche caso Perché continuate imperterriti ad ignorare la realtà dei fatti, cioè quanto ho scritto e riportato qualche giorno fa? Ci sono piste ciclabili *ufficiali* che passano su tratti arginali con segnale di divieto di transito (bianco con contorno rosso per capirci). Secondo la logica degli ultimi messaggi dovremmo inserire bicycle=no / vehicle=no / access=no? Quello è un cartello sbagliato, che non dovrebbe esistere. In quel caso si mettono i tag seguendo il buonsenso... Carlo -- .' `. | Registered Linux User #443882 |a_a | | http://counter.li.org/ .''`. \_)__/ +--- : :' : /( )\ ---+ `. `'` |\`/\ Registered Debian User #9 | `- \_|=='|_/ http://debiancounter.altervista.org/ | ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
2012/7/10 Tiziano D'Angelo tiziano.dang...@gmail.com: Perché continuate imperterriti ad ignorare la realtà dei fatti, cioè quanto ho scritto e riportato qualche giorno fa? Ci sono piste ciclabili *ufficiali* che passano su tratti arginali con segnale di divieto di transito (bianco con contorno rosso per capirci). Non conosco ancora benissimo la legge italiana, ma un po' ho guardato dentro il Codice della Strada, e non ho trovato piste ciclabili come concetto. Un divieto è un divieto, vale per tutti come tutti le leggi. Se un comune ha messo un divieto di transito su una pista ciclabile ufficiale non significa che non vale più il divieto di transito. Significa (in teoria) che non puoi utilizzare la pista ciclabile. Secondo la logica degli ultimi messaggi dovremmo inserire bicycle=no / vehicle=no / access=no? la mia proposta è: vehicle=private bicycle=permissive ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
2012/7/10 Carlo Stemberger carlo.stember...@gmail.com: Quello è un cartello sbagliato, che non dovrebbe esistere. In quel caso si mettono i tag seguendo il buonsenso... +1 -- Cià Cristiano / Sky One Home: http://www.skyone.it (itinerari in moto e non solo) Pensieri: http://blog.skyone.it ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
2012/7/10 Carlo Stemberger carlo.stember...@gmail.com: Quello è un cartello sbagliato, che non dovrebbe esistere. In quel caso si mettono i tag seguendo il buonsenso... secondome è comunque un grosso problema avere la segnaletica sbagliata, perchè lascia la possibilità al singolo vigile di crearti problemi quando vuole. E' vero che i cartelli sono spesso assurdi, per esempio ho visto un maxspeed=30, che però diventava un 40 in caso di ghiaccio o pioggia ;-). Credo che il problema è meno quello di mettere i cartelli giusti che di non rimuovere quelli vecchi. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Maxspeed_snow.jpg Poi non sono ben distinguibili i cartelli dell'inizio paese con quelli del confine del comune, i limiti di velocità sono spesso talmente ristrettivi (per esempio 30 su una carreggiata separata, perchè fra qualche chilometro si entra in un altra strada) che nessuno li rispetta (e che saresti un ostacolo quasi pericoloso a rispettarli), e alle volte cambiano molto i limiti (per esempio entro 100 metri da 60 a 90 a 50, non fai a tempo per accelerare già devi frenare di nuovo). Comunque: secondome noi non facciamo la legge, e il buonsenso lo dobbiamo chiedere da chi mette i cartelli. Non possiamo (secondome) completamente ignorare un segno stradale, solo perchè riteniamo che non abbia senso. ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
Il 10/07/2012 13.23, Martin Koppenhoefer ha scritto: Comunque: secondome noi non facciamo la legge, e il buonsenso lo dobbiamo chiedere da chi mette i cartelli. Non possiamo (secondome) completamente ignorare un segno stradale, solo perchè riteniamo che non abbia senso. Secondo me il cartello non va ignorato... il nostro compito è mappare! Voglio dire... i 30 km/h potrebbero non avere senso, ma se c'è il vigile ti becchi la multa comunque :) Stefano ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
2012/7/10 Stefano Fraccaro stefano.fracc...@libero.it: Voglio dire... i 30 km/h potrebbero non avere senso, ma se c'è il vigile ti becchi la multa comunque :) Non ci si può scordare della possibilità di ricorso al giudice di pace, per rendere completamente aleatoria la legge e la sua applicazione! :-) Ciao ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
2012/7/10 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: Se sai che una strada è percorribile dalle bici, puoi (devi) aggiungere il tag specifico bicycle=yes/official/designated/permissive solo se non implicito nel tag utilizzato per la via. No, no e no. I default non vanno assolutamente mai usati e in questo caso si vede benissimo perché. Facciamo un esempio pratico: highway=cycleway+access=destination Cosa vuol dire: le biciclette ci possono passare senza problemi (perché è cycleway) oppure solo se sono dirette lì dentro (perché è destination)? Non costa niente aggiungere bicycle=yes (o meglio ancora bicycle=official) che elimina tutte le ambiguità. Se la tua argomentazione fosse corretta, col tagging bicycle=yes potrei entrare, ma quando scendo dalla bici, non potrei più esserci. E' ovvio che access=private ha precedenza su qualsiasi altro tag specificando il mezzo di trasporto. No: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access access=yes,foot=no means that all transport modes except pedestrians can use the element Anche in questo caso se ci entro in macchina posso entrare, ma quando scendo dalla macchina non posso più esserci. Ad esempio è proprio quello che succede in autostrada! Ciao, Federico ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
Il 09/07/2012 11:55, Martin Koppenhoefer ha scritto: 2012/7/7 Fabri erfab...@gmail.com: con il tuo -1 sembra che non per te non va bene usare access=ivate per le strade di proprietà privata dietro un cancello Fabri, chiedo scusa, non mi spiego com'è successo. Facci un +1 dal -1 ;-) ciao, Martin l'importante è cercare di non confondere ancora di più le cose ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
2012/7/7 Fabri erfab...@gmail.com: con il tuo -1 sembra che non per te non va bene usare access=private per le strade di proprietà privata dietro un cancello Fabri, chiedo scusa, non mi spiego com'è successo. Facci un +1 dal -1 ;-) ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
Paolo Pozzan wrote A voler invece essere pragmatici, basta copiare da ciò che fanno gli altri =) . Sia GMaps, che Nokia Maps, che Tuttocittà ti fanno correttamente evitare la via anche se sarebbe la strada più corta, ma se la imposti come destinazione te la fanno percorrere. Ciò equivale a un access=destination. Se poi uno vuol chiedere al comune, tanto meglio. Qualsiasi mappatore di OSM potrebbe citarti decine di errori trovati su Google Maps e simili... L'approccio pragmatico semmai potrebbe essere in questo senso: se nonostante sul cartello siano citati soltanto residenti e frontisti tu sai (per esperienza, perché hai chiesto, ecc.) che il transito dei visitatori, parenti o meno, è tollerato, usa pure destination. Ripeto però che dire di usare access=destination per qualunque strada riservata ai residenti in Italia è sbagliato, pensa ad esempio ai centri storici. Ciao, Gianluca -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/access-destination-tp5715280p5715750.html Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
Paolo Pozzan wrote Se c'è scritto eccetto residenti allora possono accedere solo i residenti. Se c'è scritto eccetto residenti e frontisti allora puoi andare a trovare tuo zio che abita su quella via e non occorre che lasci l'auto prima del cartello (ammesso che si possa parcheggiare). Forse non ci stiamo capendo per il significato di frontista, che da dizionario (http://dizionari.corriere.it/dizionario_italiano/F/frontista.shtml) è Proprietario di fondi o edifici che hanno la fronte rivolta verso una strada o un corso d'acqua. Ciao, Gianluca -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/access-destination-tp5715280p5715600.html Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
Il 08/07/2012 20:24, totera ha scritto: Paolo Pozzan wrote Se c'è scritto eccetto residenti allora possono accedere solo i residenti. Se c'è scritto eccetto residenti e frontisti allora puoi andare a trovare tuo zio che abita su quella via e non occorre che lasci l'auto prima del cartello (ammesso che si possa parcheggiare). Forse non ci stiamo capendo per il significato di frontista, che da dizionario (http://dizionari.corriere.it/dizionario_italiano/F/frontista.shtml) è Proprietario di fondi o edifici che hanno la fronte rivolta verso una strada o un corso d'acqua. Sulla definizione siamo tutti d'accordo. Io basavo la mia affermazione sul fatto che, a seguito di una mia domanda in merito, la polizia locale del mio paese ha risposto come detto. Per precisione sono dunque andato a vedere il codice della strada (articolo 7) che però è molto generico e dice solo che la competenza di tali limitazioni spetta al comune. Allora ho recuperato la delibera comunale per il blocco della via per la quale avevo interpellato i vigili urbani: non c'è alcuna definizione o precisazione riportata, ma è scritto soltanto residenti e frontisti. A questo punto posso solo supporre che nella peggiore delle ipotesi ogni comune la interpreti alla sua maniera, quindi ad essere precisi sarebbe il caso di interpellare ogni singolo comune per avere la certezza di cosa intendono. A voler invece essere pragmatici, basta copiare da ciò che fanno gli altri =) . Sia GMaps, che Nokia Maps, che Tuttocittà ti fanno correttamente evitare la via anche se sarebbe la strada più corta, ma se la imposti come destinazione te la fanno percorrere. Ciò equivale a un access=destination. Se poi uno vuol chiedere al comune, tanto meglio. Ciao! Paolo ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
2012/7/6 Paolo Pozzan pa...@z2z.it: Il 06/07/2012 17:39, Martin Koppenhoefer ha scritto: motor_vehicle in Italia è il segnale con l'auto che hai linkato su altra mail: http://www.venetasegnaletica.it/servizi/images/f58a117.gif che a differenza di come dicevi tu, comprende tutti i veicoli a motore (motoveicoli), compresi i mezzi con meno di quattro ruote. grazie per questo chiarimento. Il secondo caso è interessante anche per un altro fatto: sembra che esista una classe quad in Italia, mi potete dire qualcosa in merito? (terza immagine, con scritta quad sotto, spiacentemente non leggibile nella riduzione che ho osato di mandare in ML). Non esiste la categoria quad. Essi rientrano nella categoria quadricicli a motore e non hanno un cartello di divieto specifico. si, non parlo di cartelli di divieto, ma di cartelli supplementari (per combinazioni) come si vedono sulla seconda foto. In effetti non è possibile permettere il transito solo alle automobili e non ai quad con i cartelli ufficiali attualmente disponibili. ho letto un po' nel CdS e mi sembra che un veicolo a motore con 4 ruote non è per forza la stessa cosa di un automobile (sono 2 paragrafi distinti). ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
Il 06/07/2012 17:44, Martin Koppenhoefer ha scritto: 2012/7/6 Fabri erfab...@gmail.com: non dirà niente sulla proprietà, ma a quanto dicevi sopra, va usato per le strade dietro a un cancello, dunque di proprietà privata. era l'unico caso reale che mi veniva in mente. La proprietà non deve essere privata, potrebbe essere anche un aeroporto o una caserma. O qualsiasi altro posto dove l'accesso è solo consentito agli autorizzati. hai fatto lo stesso esempio che avevo fatto io prima (aggiungendo anche un etc. a significare che esistono altre casistiche) non ho mai detto che access=private va usato solo ed esclusivamente per le ville private. con il tuo -1 sembra che non per te non va bene usare access=private per le strade di proprietà privata dietro un cancello ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
Il 07/07/2012 15:12, totera ha scritto: Paolo Pozzan wrote Per quanto riguarda invece l'oggetto della conversazione, cofermo quello detto da Volker: i frontisti sono quelli che devono raggiungere quel luogo, quindi access=destination in Italia è divieto di transito eccetto residenti e frontisti. Scusa Paolo, ma perché access=destination in Italia dovrebbe significare una cosa diversa dal resto del mondo??? access=destination significa che l'utilizzo di una strada è vietato per il transito di attraversamento ma consentito per raggiungere una destinazione che si trova lungo quella strada, e questo vale per tutti, non solo per residenti/frontisti/autorizzati. Se invece per poter accedere a una strada occorre un permesso o essere residenti/frontisti va utilizzato access=private. Se c'è scritto eccetto residenti allora possono accedere solo i residenti. Se c'è scritto eccetto residenti e frontisti allora puoi andare a trovare tuo zio che abita su quella via e non occorre che lasci l'auto prima del cartello (ammesso che si possa parcheggiare). A tuo onere dimostrare alle eventuali forze dell'ordine il fatto che tu dovessi proprio andare lì. Ovviamente chi ordina di disporre i cartelli non è sempre pienamente cosciente di ciò che fa (vedi la famosa rubrica su quattroruote o le foto che ogni tanto passano in lista) quindi è probabile che in qualche parte d'Italia lo stesso cartello o meglio, pannello integrativo, abbia significati diversi. paolopoz ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
Ho visto che al meno in alcune comuni i residenti hanno anche bisogno di un documento per accedere (registrazione della macchina), non basta solo viverci. Forse in questo caso private sarebbe meglio di destination. No, perché private esclude tutto, anche pedoni e bici. Normalmente puoi accedere a queste strade a piedi e con mezzi non motorizzati. Access si puo qualificare, private invece può solo assumere due valori. private è diverso di privato. Il primo indica che non puoi accedere salvo espresso permesso del proprietario. Il secondo indica il titolo di proprietà. Vedi anche https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dprivate Per indicare chi può accedere su una strada con che mezzo, non si può indicare con il tag private. Volker ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
+1 access=private è per i viottoli di proprietà privata in qualche villa etc. per le strade accessibili solo ai residenti in macchina metto motor_vehicle=private access=destination non l'ho ancora mai usato, mai visto un cartello che dicesse: accesso consentito a chiunque voglia raggiungere la destinazione taldeitali Il 05/07/2012 22:20, Volker Schmidt ha scritto: io uso access=private, Questo è sbagliato. Se una strada è private è come toglierla dalla mappa. Gli algoritmi di routing (per essere onesti devo dire che ne utilizzo solo due, entrambi per la bicicletta) escludono delle strade con access=private. L'accesso è completamente escluso, pedoni e bici inclusi. ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
inoltre c'è anche la possibilità usare access=customers per luoghi come hotel, etc (il che aumenta la confusione) ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
2012/7/6 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: Ho visto che al meno in alcune comuni i residenti hanno anche bisogno di un documento per accedere (registrazione della macchina), non basta solo viverci. Forse in questo caso private sarebbe meglio di destination. No, perché private esclude tutto, anche pedoni e bici. Normalmente puoi accedere a queste strade a piedi e con mezzi non motorizzati. Volker, l'hai già scritto, e ti ho già risposto: stiamo parlando di vehicle=private. Non esclude pedoni. Se il cartello è questo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_250.svg le bici *sono* compresi, altrimenti metto motor_vehicle. private è diverso di privato. Il primo indica che non puoi accedere salvo espresso permesso del proprietario. Il secondo indica il titolo di proprietà. Vedi anche https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dprivate +1 se il cartello dice che la strada è chiuso al traffico (veicolare) escluso i residenti e per essere un residente autorizzato si vuole un permesso scritto, a quel punto penso che vehicle=private è il tag più vicino. Invece vehicle=destination significa che tu puoi andare in quella strada (anche in macchina) se tu vuoi per esempio visitare qualcuno, portare qc a qn, prendere qualcuno chi è andato a visitare qn., comprare qc da qn chi si trova in quella zona, o simile. destination è molto più ampio di residenti. Per indicare chi può accedere su una strada con che mezzo, non si può indicare con il tag private. secondome ti sei confuso: abbiamo due lati, a sinistra la chiave, e a destra il valore. La chiave indica il mezzo (e private non ne fa parte), mentre il valore indica chi può accedere (e i valori sono per esempio yes, no, private, destination, permissive). Il tag foot=private indica per esempio che pedoni non possono accedere se non con permesso individuale. ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
2012/7/6 Fabri erfab...@gmail.com: +1 access=private è per i viottoli di proprietà privata in qualche villa etc. -1, private non dice niente sulla proprietà. Qui sono d'accordo con Volker. per le strade accessibili solo ai residenti in macchina metto motor_vehicle=private mi sembra giusto (se la strada è anche chiuso ai motorini piccoli) access=destination non l'ho ancora mai usato, mai visto un cartello che dicesse: accesso consentito a chiunque voglia raggiungere la destinazione taldeitali appunto, credo che il CdS non prevede questa eccezione. Abbiamo pochi istanze del tag in italia, ma qualcosa c'è: http://taginfo.hanskalabs.net/tags/access=destination (la maggiorparte) http://taginfo.hanskalabs.net/search?q=vehicle%3Ddestination http://taginfo.hanskalabs.net/search?q=bicycle%3Ddestination http://taginfo.hanskalabs.net/search?q=foot%3Ddestination http://taginfo.hanskalabs.net/search?q=motorcar%3Ddestination http://taginfo.hanskalabs.net/search?q=motorcycle%3Ddestination ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
access=destination non l'ho ancora mai usato, mai visto un cartello che dicesse: accesso consentito a chiunque voglia raggiungere la destinazione taldeitali In prassi (probabilmente non in teoria) simile a eccetto frontisti che trovi spesso. Se ti ferma il vigile e dici che vado da mia zia al numero 18, ti lascia passare. secondome ti sei confuso: abbiamo due lati, a sinistra la chiave, e a destra il valore. La chiave indica il mezzo (e private non ne fa parte), mentre il valore indica chi può accedere (e i valori sono per esempio yes, no, private, destination, permissive). Il tag foot=private indica per esempio che pedoni non possono accedere se non con permesso individuale. Hai ragione Martin: dovevo dire tag value uguale private Se il cartello è questo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_250.svg le bici *sono* compresi, altrimenti metto motor_vehicle. In Germania, si. In Italia in teoria, si. In prassi no. Non esiste un segno che vieta tutti i veicoli motorizzati, perciò in pratica lascia passare bici, carrozzelle e simili. Poi ci sono tutti i cartelli di questo tipo, dove sotto è scritto per esempio Eccetto autorizzati e forse anche una citazione della delibera del consiglio comunale con numero e data. Se escludo al traffico ciclistico tutte le strade in Italia dove c'è il cartello divieto di transito chiudo 50% delle piste ciclabili sugli argini e quasi tutte le ciclovie. L'unica cosa in questo discussione che mi preoccupa veramente è l'uso del access=private perché distrugge il routing per tante ciclovie. Volker 2012/7/6 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 2012/7/6 Fabri erfab...@gmail.com: +1 access=private è per i viottoli di proprietà privata in qualche villa etc. -1, private non dice niente sulla proprietà. Qui sono d'accordo con Volker. per le strade accessibili solo ai residenti in macchina metto motor_vehicle=private mi sembra giusto (se la strada è anche chiuso ai motorini piccoli) access=destination non l'ho ancora mai usato, mai visto un cartello che dicesse: accesso consentito a chiunque voglia raggiungere la destinazione taldeitali appunto, credo che il CdS non prevede questa eccezione. Abbiamo pochi istanze del tag in italia, ma qualcosa c'è: http://taginfo.hanskalabs.net/tags/access=destination (la maggiorparte) http://taginfo.hanskalabs.net/search?q=vehicle%3Ddestination http://taginfo.hanskalabs.net/search?q=bicycle%3Ddestination http://taginfo.hanskalabs.net/search?q=foot%3Ddestination http://taginfo.hanskalabs.net/search?q=motorcar%3Ddestination http://taginfo.hanskalabs.net/search?q=motorcycle%3Ddestination ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
2012/7/6 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: Se il cartello è questo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zeichen_250.svg le bici *sono* compresi, altrimenti metto motor_vehicle. In Germania, si. In Italia in teoria, si. In prassi no. si, sono d'accordo, anche se teoria nella tua frase sopra significa legge, quindi stai scrivendo che la legge dice una cosa, e la realtà è un'altra (per me un complesso che mi ha sconcertato molto all'inizio). La mia soluzione per ora e per il contesto qui al Lazio è di applicare in più bicycle=permissive. Non esiste un segno che vieta tutti i veicoli motorizzati, perciò in pratica lascia passare bici, carrozzelle e simili. Ci sono questi: http://www.venetasegnaletica.it/servizi/images/f58a117.gif e http://www.venetasegnaletica.it/servizi/images/f56a117.gif che si potrebbe combinare, oppure si potrebbe mettere dei segni supplementari (eccetto biciclette o simile). Alle volte si trovano questi segni ultralunghi, con tutte le eccezioni elencate, pure secondo l'ora del giorno ecc., dove uno per leggere tutto si deve fermare e avvicinarsi ;-) Altre volte c'è questo segno: http://www.venetasegnaletica.it/servizi/images/f47a116.gif invece di questo: http://www.venetasegnaletica.it/servizi/images/f46a116.gif Poi ci sono tutti i cartelli di questo tipo, dove sotto è scritto per esempio Eccetto autorizzati e forse anche una citazione della delibera del consiglio comunale con numero e data. +1 Se escludo al traffico ciclistico tutte le strade in Italia dove c'è il cartello divieto di transito chiudo 50% delle piste ciclabili sugli argini e quasi tutte le ciclovie. si, la segnaletica reale è poco consistente, ma comunque dovrebbe valere anche il CdS in casi dove la segnaletica non è sensata, o no? Mica posso io cittadino decidere se un segno stradale applicato dalle enti autorizzati (o forse solo dimenticato di rimuoverlo ;-) ) vale o meno. Il divieto di transito si traduce a Vieta a tutti i veicoli di entrare in una strada. Secondo il CdS, Art. 47, 1c, una bici è un veicolo. L'unica cosa in questo discussione che mi preoccupa veramente è l'uso del access=private perché distrugge il routing per tante ciclovie. si, anch'io lo trovo spesso (e lo corrego quando connosco bene la situazione). Se non si tratta di un percorso veramente privato (dietro un cancello) non si dovrebbe quasi mai utilizzare access ma quasi sempre vehicle. ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
+1 per Volker. Voi come vi comportereste con un cartello di divieto di transito presente su un percorso ciclabile ufficiale della Provincia di Padova? - http://goo.gl/maps/DlGX Questo è solo un esempio dei tanti su quella pista ciclabile, dove se non mi sbaglio ho visto anche divieto di transito + segnale di pista ciclopedonale Per cominciare direi sicuramente horse=no :D Vogliamo per una buona volta raggiungere una posizione chiara e cercare di documentare in wiki le varie segnaletiche e corrispondenti tag OSM? ciao Tiziano ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
Anche normalmente non si mappa per il renderering or il routing, l'inconsistenza della segnaletica e il palese contrasto fra la teoria (la legge) e la pratica ci costringono ad essere pragmatici. L'esempio di Tiziano è su una ciclovia ufficiale della Provincia di Padova. In questo contesto sono preoccuppato che impediamo l'uso del routing di Cloudmade e di Garmin con OpenCycleMap e VeloMap (sono quelli che utilizzo e so come si comportano). In questo contesto c'è anche un altro problema, che in tanti posti delle ciclovie vanno contromano in strade a senso unico. Poi ci sono anche altri problemi belli come il fatto che il router Cloudmade si ferma a una bicycle_barrier anche se c'è il tag bicycle=yes sulla barriera. 2012/7/6 Tiziano D'Angelo tiziano.dang...@gmail.com +1 per Volker. Voi come vi comportereste con un cartello di divieto di transito presente su un percorso ciclabile ufficiale della Provincia di Padova? - http://goo.gl/maps/DlGX Questo è solo un esempio dei tanti su quella pista ciclabile, dove se non mi sbaglio ho visto anche divieto di transito + segnale di pista ciclopedonale Per cominciare direi sicuramente horse=no :D Vogliamo per una buona volta raggiungere una posizione chiara e cercare di documentare in wiki le varie segnaletiche e corrispondenti tag OSM? ciao Tiziano ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
L'unica cosa in questo discussione che mi preoccupa veramente è l'uso del access=private perché distrugge il routing per tante ciclovie. si, anch'io lo trovo spesso (e lo corrego quando connosco bene la situazione). Se non si tratta di un percorso veramente privato (dietro un cancello) non si dovrebbe quasi mai utilizzare access ma quasi sempre vehicle. ciao, Martin 2012/7/6 Fabri erfab...@gmail.com: +1 access=private è per i viottoli di proprietà privata in qualche villa etc. -1, private non dice niente sulla proprietà. Qui sono d'accordo con Volker. non dirà niente sulla proprietà, ma a quanto dicevi sopra, va usato per le strade dietro a un cancello, dunque di proprietà privata. ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
2012/7/6 Tiziano D'Angelo tiziano.dang...@gmail.com: Voi come vi comportereste con un cartello di divieto di transito presente su un percorso ciclabile ufficiale della Provincia di Padova? - http://goo.gl/maps/DlGX secondo la legge in vigore sarebbe vehicle=no, horse=no hai mai provato di contattare il comune per chiedere spiegazioni? Alla fine ci dovrebbe essere qualcuno che mette i segni stradali, e chi potrebbe anche correggerli nel caso che si sono sbagliati... Ho allegato 2 foto recentemente scattate che trovo un po' strano. il 3100 perchè indica un senso unico ecetto per residenti e il 3145 che potrebbe essere una variante italiana del motor_vehicle (se fosse compreso nei immagini anche la macchina). Un altra variante che ho visto di un cartello con identico significato era il divieto di transito, con scritta eccetto automobili (sulla via del Mare a Roma). Il secondo caso è interessante anche per un altro fatto: sembra che esista una classe quad in Italia, mi potete dire qualcosa in merito? (terza immagine, con scritta quad sotto, spiacentemente non leggibile nella riduzione che ho osato di mandare in ML). ciao, Martin attachment: IMG_3100-residenti.JPGattachment: IMG_3145_motor-vehicle.JPG___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
2012/7/6 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: Poi ci sono anche altri problemi belli come il fatto che il router Cloudmade si ferma a una bicycle_barrier anche se c'è il tag bicycle=yes sulla barriera. è un bug, le lo puoi segnalare se vuoi. ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
2012/7/6 Fabri erfab...@gmail.com: non dirà niente sulla proprietà, ma a quanto dicevi sopra, va usato per le strade dietro a un cancello, dunque di proprietà privata. era l'unico caso reale che mi veniva in mente. La proprietà non deve essere privata, potrebbe essere anche un aeroporto o una caserma. O qualsiasi altro posto dove l'accesso è solo consentito agli autorizzati. ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
Il 06/07/2012 17:39, Martin Koppenhoefer ha scritto: 2012/7/6 Tiziano D'Angelo tiziano.dang...@gmail.com: Voi come vi comportereste con un cartello di divieto di transito presente su un percorso ciclabile ufficiale della Provincia di Padova? - http://goo.gl/maps/DlGX secondo la legge in vigore sarebbe vehicle=no, horse=no hai mai provato di contattare il comune per chiedere spiegazioni? Alla fine ci dovrebbe essere qualcuno che mette i segni stradali, e chi potrebbe anche correggerli nel caso che si sono sbagliati... Tra l'altro ci sono delle case dopo il cartello, quindi manca un eccetto residenti, in più accedendo dalla via accanto non c'è alcun cartello. Persino la google car l'ha percorsa quella via... Ho allegato 2 foto recentemente scattate che trovo un po' strano. il 3100 perchè indica un senso unico ecetto per residenti Sembra abbia poco senso ma bisognerebbe vedere il contesto... Magari come dicevi su un'altra mail lì ci andava un divieto di accesso e non un divieto di transito. e il 3145 che potrebbe essere una variante italiana del motor_vehicle (se fosse compreso nei immagini anche la macchina). Un altra variante che ho visto di un cartello con identico significato era il divieto di transito, con scritta eccetto automobili (sulla via del Mare a Roma). motor_vehicle in Italia è il segnale con l'auto che hai linkato su altra mail: http://www.venetasegnaletica.it/servizi/images/f58a117.gif che a differenza di come dicevi tu, comprende tutti i veicoli a motore (motoveicoli), compresi i mezzi con meno di quattro ruote. Il secondo caso è interessante anche per un altro fatto: sembra che esista una classe quad in Italia, mi potete dire qualcosa in merito? (terza immagine, con scritta quad sotto, spiacentemente non leggibile nella riduzione che ho osato di mandare in ML). Non esiste la categoria quad. Essi rientrano nella categoria quadricicli a motore e non hanno un cartello di divieto specifico. In effetti non è possibile permettere il transito solo alle automobili e non ai quad con i cartelli ufficiali attualmente disponibili. Per quanto riguarda invece l'oggetto della conversazione, cofermo quello detto da Volker: i frontisti sono quelli che devono raggiungere quel luogo, quindi access=destination in Italia è divieto di transito eccetto residenti e frontisti. Confermo inoltre quanto detto da Martin che il divieto di transito vale anche per le bici (quindi vehicle), ma non per i pedoni. Ciao! paolopoz ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
[Talk-it] access destination
Mi sto chiedendo come gestiamo eccetto residenti e simile. destination credo che non è esattamente la stessa cosa (come lo connosco dalla Germania), ma non ho mai visto un altro cartello in Italia che potrebbe tradursi come destination. Alla fine dove in Germania c'è scritto Anlieger Frei sarebbe eccetto residenti in Italia (più o meno). Voi, come vi comportate? Per me sarebbe anche un'opzione di inventarci un residents, ma se ci troviamo tutti bene con destination continuerei ad usarlo. ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
Martin Koppenhoefer wrote Mi sto chiedendo come gestiamo eccetto residenti e simile. destination credo che non è esattamente la stessa cosa (come lo connosco dalla Germania), ma non ho mai visto un altro cartello in Italia che potrebbe tradursi come destination. Alla fine dove in Germania c'è scritto Anlieger Frei sarebbe eccetto residenti in Italia (più o meno). Voi, come vi comportate? Per me sarebbe anche un'opzione di inventarci un residents, ma se ci troviamo tutti bene con destination continuerei ad usarlo. Ciao Martin, io uso access=private, e trovo che l'uso di access=destination che fanno alcuni in Italia per questi casi sia un grave errore. Visto che se ne era già parlato riporto un mio precedente intervento. Dal wiki in inglese, access=destination è Only when traveling to this element. Dunque va usato per quelle strade in cui l'accesso in genere non è consentito, tranne nel caso in cui si debba raggiungere una destinazione che si trova in quella strada; è il caso ad esempio della strada di accesso a un hotel in cui c'è il cartello divieto di transito esclusi i veicoli diretti all'hotel. Oppure può essere usato per aree quali ospedali, università, ecc. in cui la circolazione è consentita per raggiungere la struttura dall'esterno o per spostarsi all'interno di essa, ma non per tagliarla, entrando da un accesso e uscendo da un altro. Una strada riservata ai residenti, o una ZTL, non rientra in questo caso, perché non consente di raggiungere la destinazione a chiunque voglia, ma soltanto a certe persone o veicoli autorizzati. Non vedo poi neanche la necessità di introdurre access=residents, secondo me sono sufficienti access=no (se c'è un divieto di transito) e access=private (se c'è un divieto di transito eccetto residenti, autorizzati, muniti di permesso e simili). Ciao, Gianluca -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/access-destination-tp5715280p5715290.html Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
io uso access=private, Questo è sbagliato. Se una strada è private è come toglierla dalla mappa. Gli algoritmi di routing (per essere onesti devo dire che ne utilizzo solo due, entrambi per la bicicletta) escludono delle strade con access=private. L'accesso è completamente escluso, pedoni e bici inclusi. In realtà, le strade in questione non sono chiuse al accesso, solo al accesso veicolare motorizzato, salvo per i residenti e persone autorizzate a rendersi nelle proprietà della strada in questione. Devo dire che ne ho cambiato svariate strade con tag private a motor_vehicle=destination per corregere questo problema. Volker e trovo che l'uso di access=destination che fanno alcuni in Italia per questi casi sia un grave errore. Visto che se ne era già parlato riporto un mio precedente intervento. Dal wiki in inglese, access=destination è Only when traveling to this element. Dunque va usato per quelle strade in cui l'accesso in genere non è consentito, tranne nel caso in cui si debba raggiungere una destinazione che si trova in quella strada; è il caso ad esempio della strada di accesso a un hotel in cui c'è il cartello divieto di transito esclusi i veicoli diretti all'hotel. Oppure può essere usato per aree quali ospedali, università, ecc. in cui la circolazione è consentita per raggiungere la struttura dall'esterno o per spostarsi all'interno di essa, ma non per tagliarla, entrando da un accesso e uscendo da un altro. Una strada riservata ai residenti, o una ZTL, non rientra in questo caso, perché non consente di raggiungere la destinazione a chiunque voglia, ma soltanto a certe persone o veicoli autorizzati. Non vedo poi neanche la necessità di introdurre access=residents, secondo me sono sufficienti access=no (se c'è un divieto di transito) e access=private (se c'è un divieto di transito eccetto residenti, autorizzati, muniti di permesso e simili). Ciao, Gianluca -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/access-destination-tp5715280p5715290.html Sent from the Italy General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-it] access destination
2012/7/5 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: Se una strada è private è come toglierla dalla mappa. Gli algoritmi di routing (per essere onesti devo dire che ne utilizzo solo due, entrambi per la bicicletta) escludono delle strade con access=private. L'accesso è completamente escluso, pedoni e bici inclusi. si, al solito metto vehicle o motor_vehicle a secondo il cartello, access nel titolo era la versione generale, la mia domanda era riferito al destination, che non è uguale a residenti. Ho visto che al meno in alcune comuni i residenti hanno anche bisogno di un documento per accedere (registrazione della macchina), non basta solo viverci. Forse in questo caso private sarebbe meglio di destination. ciao, Martin ___ Talk-it mailing list Talk-it@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-it
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On 9/11/2011 6:12 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: (As opposed to http://maps.google.com/maps?q=orlandohl=enll=28.394553,-81.549518spn=0.0168,0.041199t=mz=16vpsrc=6layer=ccbll=28.394524,-81.549396panoid=f638RcwkM8_a-3tntIJmRgcbp=12,335.79,,1,3.19 which is on private property and hence presumably enforceable.) Hmm, I just looked at the Orlando Property Appraisers map, and it looks to me like it's right of way. What makes you say it is private property? You must be looking at the wrong road. Except for the intersection with Bonnet Creek Parkway and the crossing of Canal C-1, Vista Boulevard is entirely on land owned by WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U S INC. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:43 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 9/11/2011 6:12 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Nathan Edgars IInerou...@gmail.com wrote: (As opposed to http://maps.google.com/maps?q=orlandohl=enll=28.394553,-81.549518spn=0.0168,0.041199t=mz=16vpsrc=6layer=ccbll=28.394524,-81.549396panoid=f638RcwkM8_a-3tntIJmRgcbp=12,335.79,,1,3.19 which is on private property and hence presumably enforceable.) Hmm, I just looked at the Orlando Property Appraisers map, and it looks to me like it's right of way. What makes you say it is private property? You must be looking at the wrong road. Except for the intersection with Bonnet Creek Parkway and the crossing of Canal C-1, Vista Boulevard is entirely on land owned by WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U S INC. The fact that the land is owned by Walt Disney Parks does not preclude the fact that they have granted a right of way through it. According to Orange County property records, the 65.13 acres of land is owned by Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US Inc. However, 11 acres of it is under the land use right of way (the rest is wasteland or submerged). http://beta.ocpafl.org/searches/ParcelSearch.aspx?pid=28241700017 ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
Re: Kansas Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle ... Toby On Sep 9, 2011 10:00 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:55 -0400, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:43 -0400, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Peter Dobratz pe...@dobratz.us wrote: Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually private. I'd even consider not putting access restrictions on them at all, unless there is some rule that you shouldn't be using them as a through street. What if you are walking or on a bicycle? What about jurisdictions like New Jersey, which have this law: New Jersey 39:4-66.2 Except for emergency vehicles and motor vehicles being operated at the direction of a law enforcement officer, no person shall drive a motor vehicle on public property, except public roads or highways, or private property, with or without the permission of the owner, for the purpose of avoiding a traffic control signal or sign. That's a pretty normal consideration and most routers avoid cutting through service/living_street situations as is (though explicit tagging is never bad). Would such private ways, which could be used to avoid a stop sign, be access=permissive, motor_vehicle=destination? I don't know. I thought access=destination was only to be used for rights of way. And I think if I were coding a router I'd avoid using an access=permissive as a through street anyway. But maybe that's my learned-to-drive-in-New-Jersey bias. I wouldn't consider it permissive by bicycle in such a circumstance, because most (all?) places in the US consider bicycles vehicles except when operated in extremely limited circumstances (effectively making a cyclist act like a pedestrian), since pedestrians are normally exempt from intersection signals if their trip takes them down a contiguous sidewalk that doesn't cross the street. The NJ law in question is regarding driving a *motor* vehicle on public property, though. That law doesn't apply to bicycles, though I can't say for certain that there isn't another law which does. Not being familiar with the NJ situation, it is true in Oregon and Oklahoma, but not in Kansas (as bicycles aren't considered vehicles in that state for some reason). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
Interesting...where did you find that? Kansas Cyclist seems to be under a different impression. On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 02:12 -0500, Toby Murray wrote: Re: Kansas Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle ... Toby On Sep 9, 2011 10:00 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:55 -0400, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:43 -0400, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Peter Dobratz pe...@dobratz.us wrote: Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually private. I'd even consider not putting access restrictions on them at all, unless there is some rule that you shouldn't be using them as a through street. What if you are walking or on a bicycle? What about jurisdictions like New Jersey, which have this law: New Jersey 39:4-66.2 Except for emergency vehicles and motor vehicles being operated at the direction of a law enforcement officer, no person shall drive a motor vehicle on public property, except public roads or highways, or private property, with or without the permission of the owner, for the purpose of avoiding a traffic control signal or sign. That's a pretty normal consideration and most routers avoid cutting through service/living_street situations as is (though explicit tagging is never bad). Would such private ways, which could be used to avoid a stop sign, be access=permissive, motor_vehicle=destination? I don't know. I thought access=destination was only to be used for rights of way. And I think if I were coding a router I'd avoid using an access=permissive as a through street anyway. But maybe that's my learned-to-drive-in-New-Jersey bias. I wouldn't consider it permissive by bicycle in such a circumstance, because most (all?) places in the US consider bicycles vehicles except when operated in extremely limited circumstances (effectively making a cyclist act like a pedestrian), since pedestrians are normally exempt from intersection signals if their trip takes them down a contiguous sidewalk that doesn't cross the street. The NJ law in question is regarding driving a *motor* vehicle on public property, though. That law doesn't apply to bicycles, though I can't say for certain that there isn't another law which does. Not being familiar with the NJ situation, it is true in Oregon and Oklahoma, but not in Kansas (as bicycles aren't considered vehicles in that state for some reason). ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On 9/11/2011 3:26 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 02:12 -0500, Toby Murray wrote: Re: Kansas Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle ... Interesting...where did you find that? Kansas Cyclist seems to be under a different impression. http://www.kansascyclist.com/kansas_cycling_laws.html ? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 03:33 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 9/11/2011 3:12 AM, Toby Murray wrote: Re: Kansas Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle ... So you turn into the driveway and switch to pedestrian mode at the instant you cross the sidewalk, and are therefore no longer upon a roadway :) Seriously, I'd say this is probably a very gray area of the law. I'm sure there are many streets that are marked 'no thru traffic' but are inventoried if not signed as parts of a medium-distance bike route. So a bike router is probably better-off ignoring access=destination in general, unless the user specifies that he wants to follow the letter of the law. Beaverton, Oregon, in all their wisdom, likes to post roads as DEAD END or NO OUTLET when it clearly does have an outlet, just not for motor vehicles. It's rather annoying if you're not closely familiar with a part of town and trying to follow someone else's directions, since NO OUTLET means you're about to go enter a pocket neighborhood of nothing but dead end streets, and DEAD END terminates, not always with a cul-de-sac. It's one of the many little things that it so I can't wait to GTFO of Oregon again. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On 9/11/2011 4:25 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: Beaverton, Oregon, in all their wisdom, likes to post roads as DEAD END or NO OUTLET when it clearly does have an outlet, just not for motor vehicles. I'm not sure what this has to do with access tags, since these are advisory (yellow) signs. Only a regulatory (white) no thru traffic would be access=destination. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Sun, 2011-09-11 at 04:34 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote: On 9/11/2011 4:25 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: Beaverton, Oregon, in all their wisdom, likes to post roads as DEAD END or NO OUTLET when it clearly does have an outlet, just not for motor vehicles. I'm not sure what this has to do with access tags, since these are advisory (yellow) signs. Only a regulatory (white) no thru traffic would be access=destination. It's an example of a situation where if you're on a bicycle it might be better to pay attention to the GPS or the directions given than to take a sign that indicates there's no physical way out except the way you came as being accurate. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 3:33 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 9/11/2011 3:12 AM, Toby Murray wrote: Re: Kansas Every person riding a bicycle upon a roadway shall be granted all of the rights and shall be subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle ... So you turn into the driveway and switch to pedestrian mode at the instant you cross the sidewalk, and are therefore no longer upon a roadway :) Seriously, I'd say this is probably a very gray area of the law. I'm sure there are many streets that are marked 'no thru traffic' but are inventoried if not signed as parts of a medium-distance bike route. So a bike router is probably better-off ignoring access=destination in general, unless the user specifies that he wants to follow the letter of the law. The no thru traffic sign is nonstandard and very jurisdiction specific. In general there is no letter of the law, as the law generally does not mention such signs. In any case, if access=destination only applies to motor vehicles, it should be motor_vehicle=destination. If it only applies to vehicles, it should be vehicle=destination. Routers may want to cheat and assume access=destination means [motor_]vehicle=destination, but if you're going to tag it, you should tag it correctly. As for whether no thru traffic is even supposed to be meant to apply to bicycles, I don't know. Personally I'd certainly fight any ticket I received for failure to obey such a sign. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On 9/11/2011 7:53 AM, Anthony wrote: The no thru traffic sign is nonstandard and very jurisdiction specific. In general there is no letter of the law, as the law generally does not mention such signs. You seem to be right (at least in Florida): http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/B762787E37D4A3CD85256E620055999C So the question is whether access=destination should be used where the sign exists but has no legal meaning. (As opposed to http://maps.google.com/maps?q=orlandohl=enll=28.394553,-81.549518spn=0.0168,0.041199t=mz=16vpsrc=6layer=ccbll=28.394524,-81.549396panoid=f638RcwkM8_a-3tntIJmRgcbp=12,335.79,,1,3.19 which is on private property and hence presumably enforceable.) ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: On 9/11/2011 7:53 AM, Anthony wrote: The no thru traffic sign is nonstandard and very jurisdiction specific. In general there is no letter of the law, as the law generally does not mention such signs. You seem to be right (at least in Florida): http://myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/B762787E37D4A3CD85256E620055999C So the question is whether access=destination should be used where the sign exists but has no legal meaning. I'd be tempted to mark such ways as access=no_thru_traffic, and let the routers figure out what it means. It seems a bit too much to ask mappers to interpret legal statutes and precedents. But really, I don't have a good answer. (As opposed to http://maps.google.com/maps?q=orlandohl=enll=28.394553,-81.549518spn=0.0168,0.041199t=mz=16vpsrc=6layer=ccbll=28.394524,-81.549396panoid=f638RcwkM8_a-3tntIJmRgcbp=12,335.79,,1,3.19 which is on private property and hence presumably enforceable.) Enforceable as trespass, I assume. But access=destination wouldn't be accurate there. Using access=destination implies that anyone may (in fact, has a right to) use that way, if they need it to get to their destination. But the sign says that only guests, cast, and business invitees may use the way. As I commented on the wiki, I'd rather see access=restricted for these types of situations. (In this case with access:restriction=guests, cast, and business invitees only.) Or access=customers, if you think that tag is acceptable (but personally I'd rather see a very small number of access tags). Again, personally, I'd use access=private before I'd use access=destination. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote: (As opposed to http://maps.google.com/maps?q=orlandohl=enll=28.394553,-81.549518spn=0.0168,0.041199t=mz=16vpsrc=6layer=ccbll=28.394524,-81.549396panoid=f638RcwkM8_a-3tntIJmRgcbp=12,335.79,,1,3.19 which is on private property and hence presumably enforceable.) Hmm, I just looked at the Orlando Property Appraisers map, and it looks to me like it's right of way. What makes you say it is private property? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
Hi all, I have a question regarding access=private vs access=destination. In the Portland area, we have some apartment complex roadways that have been tagged as access=private. Paul makes the point that routers should be able to route on access=private as a last resort. However, in my opinion, there is a problem with adding access=private - most routers will not permit anyone to use those streets. In OpenTripPlanner's case (http://opentripplanner.com/), if it is given a starting destination within an apartment complex tagged with access=private, the router will try to snap that location to the nearest permitted road, which in some cases, may be an irrelevant or disconnected road to the origin. Paul suggests this might be a flaw in the code and maybe he is right. Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually private. I can drive into them without a key card (usually); I shouldn't be using them as a through street, but they are permitted for use if my destination is on that complex street. For OpenTripPlanner, access=destination is permitted. Should we permit routing on access=private or change the tags? OpenTripPlanner tries to base its implementation off of OSM documentation, but I could see how apartment complex parking lots is a cross between a private driveway and a customer parking lot. From the key:access wiki page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access) destination: Only when traveling to this element, e.g. *customer parking lots. * private: Only with permission of the owner on an individual basis ] From the access=private wiki page ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dprivate) The access=private tag is generally used in combination with the road network tags, with the purpose of indicating that the road is not to be used by the general public. Usually used for Private driveways (in the city) and country lane ways, where the road just leads to a private home. *Routing programs would be able to detect this tag, and knows to avoid these roads when routing. * Could y'all give some input so as to help us make an informed decision? Thanks! -- PJ Houser Trimet GIS intern ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually private. I can drive into them without a key card (usually); I shouldn't be using them as a through street, but they are permitted for use if my destination is on that complex street. For OpenTripPlanner, access=destination is permitted. Should we permit routing on access=private or change the tags? There are two issues here: 1) semantics of laws in the UK applied to the US, in terms of access=destination 2) how can a router use access=private without a side database of which users have permission to use which roads? 1) access=destination As I understand it, the access is tag is fundamentally about what a member of a public can do by right, and is tightly linked to British concepts of public rights of way. This maps relatively well to public ways in the US, and even to private ways (to which as far as I can tell the public has a right of access). In England there are apaprently streets where one only has a right of access if one is traveling someplace properly accessed via that street, and I am unaware of this concept having a broad counterpart in american law. In the US, we have a lot of private driveways (not private ways) leading to houses or businesses, and we have a lot of parking lots that are privately owned and associated with businesses. Everybody knows that it's 100% ok to use those driveways if you are (properly) going to a house/business served by it, and that it's 100% ok to park in a lot that serves a business if you are going to that business. But people have no legal right to demand access; they are licensees or invitees on that property, and the owner can tell them to leave at any time. Thus, many people (including me) have repurposed access=destination to label places where it's socially 100% ok to use the road/driveway/parking-lot if you have a related purpose. Others have used access=customer for the same meaning, to keep it separate from access=destination. 2) If there access=private, I take that to mean: you could physically use this, but it's just plain not allowed. To have a router use access=private ways/etc., you really need a way to know who is allowed to use which ways. For emergency=yes, that's perhaps separate from access=private, but for individuals with differing permissions, I don't see any way to succeed except to to model the entire set of joey can use this road facts. Given your situation, it seems like expecting access=destination is the right answer. access=private really means unless you specifically have been given permission, you should not be on this road. There's a fine line; I know of a condo complex where there's a gate with a code, and as an invitee I have the code. So I could argue that it's access=private, and that's arguably right. But, from the point of view of making the map database useful, routing over that access=private seems better than not - it makes the situation that invittees with the code get good routing, and those without codes do not, rather than the reverse. Because those with codes are far more likely to be there, that seems socially optimal.And a gate should be modeled as a gate; that's not really the point. pgpyFhGnWK88E.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually private. I'd even consider not putting access restrictions on them at all, unless there is some rule that you shouldn't be using them as a through street. What if you are walking or on a bicycle? I generally only put access=private on roads that explicitly say private on the sign. A lot of condo complexes around here have a sign on the driveway saying private property, no tresspassing, etc. Apartments complexes usually don't have such a sign. I use access=destination whenever I see the sign no thru traffic. (no thru trucks is hgv=destination). Also, I use access=destination for things like roads into cemeteries, since presumably they don't want people drive through them to get somewhere faster. Peter ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:25 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, PJ Houser stephanie.jean.hou...@gmail.com wrote: Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as access=destination or access=private? Shouldn't they generally be access=permissive? +1, unless there's a gate which you either need a card/PIN for or need a resident to allow you in, then it would be access=private. Or if it could be used as a cut through but theres a sign explicitly forbidding this (e.g. No through road) then access=destination. I haven't often added access tags at all for condo/apartment complexes, but if I do I probably use access=permissive most often. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Peter Dobratz pe...@dobratz.us wrote: Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually private. I'd even consider not putting access restrictions on them at all, unless there is some rule that you shouldn't be using them as a through street. What if you are walking or on a bicycle? What about jurisdictions like New Jersey, which have this law: New Jersey 39:4-66.2 Except for emergency vehicles and motor vehicles being operated at the direction of a law enforcement officer, no person shall drive a motor vehicle on public property, except public roads or highways, or private property, with or without the permission of the owner, for the purpose of avoiding a traffic control signal or sign. Would such private ways, which could be used to avoid a stop sign, be access=permissive, motor_vehicle=destination? I don't know. I thought access=destination was only to be used for rights of way. And I think if I were coding a router I'd avoid using an access=permissive as a through street anyway. But maybe that's my learned-to-drive-in-New-Jersey bias. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:00 -0400, Peter Dobratz wrote: I generally only put access=private on roads that explicitly say private on the sign. A lot of condo complexes around here have a sign on the driveway saying private property, no tresspassing, etc. Apartments complexes usually don't have such a sign. That seems to be contrary to the norm in Oregon and especially Oklahoma. In states that permit lethal force to protect life or property, gated or not, these are roads to avoid in an effort to prevent a potentially mortal mistake (not so much a concern in urban areas as it is in semi-rural and small town locations, particularly in the deserts and mountains of Oregon where law enforcement is effectively non-existant, and small town, semi-rural and rural locations in Oklahoma where people have a pretty clear idea who should be around.) I use access=destination whenever I see the sign no thru traffic. (no thru trucks is hgv=destination). Also, I use access=destination for things like roads into cemeteries, since presumably they don't want people drive through them to get somewhere faster. I don't believe that use to be disputed for public and permissive streets (such as Hall Boulevard crossing Cedar Mill Crossing) streets. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:43 -0400, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Peter Dobratz pe...@dobratz.us wrote: Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually private. I'd even consider not putting access restrictions on them at all, unless there is some rule that you shouldn't be using them as a through street. What if you are walking or on a bicycle? What about jurisdictions like New Jersey, which have this law: New Jersey 39:4-66.2 Except for emergency vehicles and motor vehicles being operated at the direction of a law enforcement officer, no person shall drive a motor vehicle on public property, except public roads or highways, or private property, with or without the permission of the owner, for the purpose of avoiding a traffic control signal or sign. That's a pretty normal consideration and most routers avoid cutting through service/living_street situations as is (though explicit tagging is never bad). Would such private ways, which could be used to avoid a stop sign, be access=permissive, motor_vehicle=destination? I don't know. I thought access=destination was only to be used for rights of way. And I think if I were coding a router I'd avoid using an access=permissive as a through street anyway. But maybe that's my learned-to-drive-in-New-Jersey bias. I wouldn't consider it permissive by bicycle in such a circumstance, because most (all?) places in the US consider bicycles vehicles except when operated in extremely limited circumstances (effectively making a cyclist act like a pedestrian), since pedestrians are normally exempt from intersection signals if their trip takes them down a contiguous sidewalk that doesn't cross the street. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:25 -0400, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, PJ Houser stephanie.jean.hou...@gmail.com wrote: Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as access=destination or access=private? Shouldn't they generally be access=permissive? At least in the states I've been in, in general it seems to be in a commercial setting, it would be. In residential settings, these ways tend to be closed to everyone except visitors/clients of residents (couriers, plumbers, pizza delivery, garbage removal, etc) that have have been invited in, and trespassing charges can be pressed against everyone else. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:43 -0400, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Peter Dobratz pe...@dobratz.us wrote: Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually private. I'd even consider not putting access restrictions on them at all, unless there is some rule that you shouldn't be using them as a through street. What if you are walking or on a bicycle? What about jurisdictions like New Jersey, which have this law: New Jersey 39:4-66.2 Except for emergency vehicles and motor vehicles being operated at the direction of a law enforcement officer, no person shall drive a motor vehicle on public property, except public roads or highways, or private property, with or without the permission of the owner, for the purpose of avoiding a traffic control signal or sign. That's a pretty normal consideration and most routers avoid cutting through service/living_street situations as is (though explicit tagging is never bad). Would such private ways, which could be used to avoid a stop sign, be access=permissive, motor_vehicle=destination? I don't know. I thought access=destination was only to be used for rights of way. And I think if I were coding a router I'd avoid using an access=permissive as a through street anyway. But maybe that's my learned-to-drive-in-New-Jersey bias. I wouldn't consider it permissive by bicycle in such a circumstance, because most (all?) places in the US consider bicycles vehicles except when operated in extremely limited circumstances (effectively making a cyclist act like a pedestrian), since pedestrians are normally exempt from intersection signals if their trip takes them down a contiguous sidewalk that doesn't cross the street. The NJ law in question is regarding driving a *motor* vehicle on public property, though. That law doesn't apply to bicycles, though I can't say for certain that there isn't another law which does. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:55 -0400, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:43 -0400, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Peter Dobratz pe...@dobratz.us wrote: Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as access=destination or access=private? The complexes are not usually private. I'd even consider not putting access restrictions on them at all, unless there is some rule that you shouldn't be using them as a through street. What if you are walking or on a bicycle? What about jurisdictions like New Jersey, which have this law: New Jersey 39:4-66.2 Except for emergency vehicles and motor vehicles being operated at the direction of a law enforcement officer, no person shall drive a motor vehicle on public property, except public roads or highways, or private property, with or without the permission of the owner, for the purpose of avoiding a traffic control signal or sign. That's a pretty normal consideration and most routers avoid cutting through service/living_street situations as is (though explicit tagging is never bad). Would such private ways, which could be used to avoid a stop sign, be access=permissive, motor_vehicle=destination? I don't know. I thought access=destination was only to be used for rights of way. And I think if I were coding a router I'd avoid using an access=permissive as a through street anyway. But maybe that's my learned-to-drive-in-New-Jersey bias. I wouldn't consider it permissive by bicycle in such a circumstance, because most (all?) places in the US consider bicycles vehicles except when operated in extremely limited circumstances (effectively making a cyclist act like a pedestrian), since pedestrians are normally exempt from intersection signals if their trip takes them down a contiguous sidewalk that doesn't cross the street. The NJ law in question is regarding driving a *motor* vehicle on public property, though. That law doesn't apply to bicycles, though I can't say for certain that there isn't another law which does. Not being familiar with the NJ situation, it is true in Oregon and Oklahoma, but not in Kansas (as bicycles aren't considered vehicles in that state for some reason). signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:25 -0400, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, PJ Houser stephanie.jean.hou...@gmail.com wrote: Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as access=destination or access=private? Shouldn't they generally be access=permissive? At least in the states I've been in, in general it seems to be in a commercial setting, it would be. In residential settings, these ways tend to be closed to everyone except visitors/clients of residents (couriers, plumbers, pizza delivery, garbage removal, etc) that have have been invited in, and trespassing charges can be pressed against everyone else. Without warning? Where in the US can you be charged with trespass without any warning (no sign, no fence, no marked trees, no building, no verbal warning)? ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Sat, 2011-09-10 at 00:02 -0400, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:25 -0400, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, PJ Houser stephanie.jean.hou...@gmail.com wrote: Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as access=destination or access=private? Shouldn't they generally be access=permissive? At least in the states I've been in, in general it seems to be in a commercial setting, it would be. In residential settings, these ways tend to be closed to everyone except visitors/clients of residents (couriers, plumbers, pizza delivery, garbage removal, etc) that have have been invited in, and trespassing charges can be pressed against everyone else. Without warning? Where in the US can you be charged with trespass without any warning (no sign, no fence, no marked trees, no building, no verbal warning)? It's pretty rare for those things not to exist, visibly on the aerial imagery even (given the commonality of fences), and it not being signed in urban areas is rare. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Sat, 2011-09-10 at 00:02 -0400, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 23:25 -0400, Anthony wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 7:36 PM, PJ Houser stephanie.jean.hou...@gmail.com wrote: Do you think it makes more sense to tag the apartment complexes as access=destination or access=private? Shouldn't they generally be access=permissive? At least in the states I've been in, in general it seems to be in a commercial setting, it would be. In residential settings, these ways tend to be closed to everyone except visitors/clients of residents (couriers, plumbers, pizza delivery, garbage removal, etc) that have have been invited in, and trespassing charges can be pressed against everyone else. Without warning? Where in the US can you be charged with trespass without any warning (no sign, no fence, no marked trees, no building, no verbal warning)? It's pretty rare for those things not to exist, visibly on the aerial imagery even (given the commonality of fences), and it not being signed in urban areas is rare. Ah, okay. Yeah, if there's a sign or a fence/gate, access=private is probably the way to go. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] access=destination vs access=private
On 9/9/2011 7:36 PM, PJ Houser wrote: In OpenTripPlanner's case (http://opentripplanner.com/), if it is given a starting destination within an apartment complex tagged with access=private, the router will try to snap that location to the nearest permitted road, which in some cases, may be an irrelevant or disconnected road to the origin. But this also happens for a gated community, which is definitely access=private. I think Google handles it by routing you along it but warning you that you're starting or ending on a private road. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: A Local Traffic sign is a recommendation, not a law. As such, it is sort of the opposite of access=designated, which is designed to show places we would prefer certain vehicles to go, this is designed to show places we would prefer them not to. We don't actually have a tag for this at the moment, maybe we need one. Yeah good point. Or alternatively, for motor vehicles, the way is designated for local traffic? Some potential tags: * motor_vehicle:local_traffic=designated * motor_vehicle:destination=designated ...or... * motor_vehicle:through_traffic=not_intended Maybe we need to do a data extract and look at how many such tags exist - ie how big a problem it is. There may be few enough that we can do some sort of check before we do any automated changing. FWIW, I believe access=destination ways are rendered in OSM mapnik with a dotted blue fill, e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-27.46151lon=153.09406zoom=17layers=B000FTF ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: ... I've emailed QLD gov and Brisbane CC about what the signs mean, though I'm not holding my breath for a response... An email response from the Road Safety System Management Division, Department of Transport and Main Roads (QLD): --- The 'Local Traffic Only' sign is an advisory sign only and is not regulatory. An extract from the MUTCD is produced below. 20.3.3 Local traffic only (G9-40-1) The LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY sign may be used at the entrance to a local area to advise road users that the street is not intended for through traffic. This sign may be installed by either The Department of Transport and Main Roads or Local Government with the appropriate delegation. It is an advisory sign to all road users advising the street is not intended to be used by through traffic, however vehicles are the primary target (bicycles and pedestrians are generally not an issue). --- Suggestions for tagging, then? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Roy Wallace wrote: On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: ... I've emailed QLD gov and Brisbane CC about what the signs mean, though I'm not holding my breath for a response... An email response from the Road Safety System Management Division, Department of Transport and Main Roads (QLD): --- The 'Local Traffic Only' sign is an advisory sign only and is not regulatory. An extract from the MUTCD is produced below. 20.3.3 Local traffic only (G9-40-1) The LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY sign may be used at the entrance to a local area to advise road users that the street is not intended for through traffic. This sign may be installed by either The Department of Transport and Main Roads or Local Government with the appropriate delegation. It is an advisory sign to all road users advising the street is not intended to be used by through traffic, however vehicles are the primary target (bicycles and pedestrians are generally not an issue). --- Suggestions for tagging, then? Great work Roy (not providing any suggestions) Last time I emailed RTA (NSW) for information was June 09 I'm still awaiting the reply. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: Great work Roy Cheers :) (not providing any suggestions) Alright how's this It is an advisory sign to all road users advising the street is not intended to be used by through traffic, however vehicles are the primary target (bicycles and pedestrians are generally not an issue). Unfortunately, this response is still a little unclear. But I would read that generally not an issue here means excluded. Please let me know if you disagree (in which case, you in fact aren't allowed to *walk* through a Local Traffic Only sign, and access=destination is the correct tag to use). So, if everyone agrees that response means bicycles/pedestrians are excluded, then from http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access we could use: vehicle=destination (which - perhaps wrongly - includes bicycles), or motor_vehicle=destination (which - perhaps wrongly - excludes a horse and carriage). motor_vehicle=destination seems best to me. I'd propose, for tags in Queensland (and possibly elsewhere in AU): 1) a bulk change of access=destination to motor_vehicle=destination + FIXME=does access=destination really apply to bicycles/pedestrians here? 2) an update to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines recommending the use of motor_vehicle=destination + motor_vehicle:source=Local Traffic Only sign in these cases. I propose a bulk update because a) I can't think of any other reason why access=destination would be applied to ways in Queensland, other than due to the observance of Local Traffic Only sign, and b) this reportedly adversely affects foot routing, so it should be fixed. The 'Local Traffic Only' sign is an advisory sign only and is not regulatory. I don't think this is important, but this could be specified using motor_vehicle:regulatory=no (or inferred from motor_vehicle:source=Local Traffic Only sign) Thoughts? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
2010/1/25 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
The 'Local Traffic Only' sign is an advisory sign only and is not
regulatory.
I don't think this is important, but this could be specified using
motor_vehicle:regulatory=no (or inferred from
motor_vehicle:source=Local Traffic Only sign)
Actually, this is the important bit. By saying it is not regulatory
means that it can not be enforced. I am legally allowed to drive past
a Local traffic sign and totally ignore it. By the definitions in
the Wiki, this means it should be tagged access=yes {The public has an
official, legally-enshrined right of access}. We could also skip the
tag entirely, as this is assumed the default.
A Local Traffic sign is a recommendation, not a law. As such, it is
sort of the opposite of access=designated, which is designed to show
places we would prefer certain vehicles to go, this is designed to
show places we would prefer them not to. We don't actually have a tag
for this at the moment, maybe we need one.
I propose a bulk update because a) I can't think of any other reason
why access=destination would be applied to ways in Queensland
I can think of quite a few ways which should be marked
access=destination in QLD. Almost any large factory or industrial
complex has some sort of access road, some of which are quite long and
mapped. Access to these is (theoretically) restricted to people
visiting the factory, though enforcement varies. Roads through
Enoggera barracks and similar places are similarly restricted. We
don't want routing software trying to take anybody through these, even
if you're on foot.
Maybe we need to do a data extract and look at how many such tags
exist - ie how big a problem it is. There may be few enough that we
can do some sort of check before we do any automated changing.
Stephen
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Stephen Hope slh...@gmail.com wrote: In one of the QLD gov handouts - Your keys to driving in Queensland, it says The road past the sign is not intended for through traffic. The sign may be at the entrance to a local area or at detours where local traffic is allowed to enter the work area. But what does traffic mean? I think most people would, without thinking too hard, assume it meant motor vehicles. But perhaps it is broader than that. *shrug* At the end of the day, it seems like a question of courtesy rather than law. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Can you legally ride a bike through a Local Traffic Only area? The closest I could find, for Queensland is from: http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TrantOpRURR09.pdf 97 (1) Road access signs: A driver must not drive on a length of road to which a road access sign applies if information on or with the sign indicates that the driver or the driver's vehicle is not permitted beyond the sign. However, there's no explicit mention or definition of Local Traffic Only signs. Interestingly, the above clause applies to A driver. This is defined as: 16 Who is a driver: (1) A driver is the person who is driving a vehicle (except a motorbike, bicycle, animal or animal-drawn vehicle). (2) However, a driver does not include a person pushing a motorised wheelchair. So this would seem to infer that motorbike riders don't have to obey Local Traffic Only signs. Strange (and/or incorrect). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Roy Wallace wrote: On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: Can you legally ride a bike through a Local Traffic Only area? The closest I could find, for Queensland is from: http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TrantOpRURR09.pdf I 'read' the SA road rules and a search did not find the phrase local traffic so perhaps the signs are actually meaningless in law they appear in council minutes so perhaps its a local council job ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
2010/1/15 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: So this would seem to infer that motorbike riders don't have to obey Local Traffic Only signs. Strange (and/or incorrect). Motorbike riders are exempt from a number of things cars aren't, they're allowed to be in transit lanes without any other passengers, they're allowed in bus lanes, they can ignore most if not all directions on how to park (eg 60 degrees, 90 degrees, no reverse parking) etc, at least in Sydney/NSW, can't comment on other state laws. So doesn't entirely surprise me. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 8:56 PM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: Motorbike riders are exempt from a number of things cars aren't, ... So doesn't entirely surprise me. Interesting. So this potentially means all access=destination tags should be changed to motor_vehicle=destination + motorcycle=yes. Would be better to first get confirmation from government on the sign's meaning though... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 7:41 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com wrote: 2010/1/16 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: Interesting. So this potentially means all access=destination tags should be changed to motor_vehicle=destination + motorcycle=yes. Would be better to first get confirmation from government on the sign's meaning though... Does this mean we should tag bus lanes in NSW as motorcycle=yes? Personally I don't think we should do either, we're tagging what's on the ground, not what's on the legal books. That doesn't mean we can't make a note about this on the wiki. The main issue that access=destination (i.e. applying to all traffic modes) is wrong - it isn't on the ground, and (quite probably...) isn't even in the legal books. How should Local Traffic Only signs be encoded in the database, given that we want to tag the meaning of the sign, rather than the sign itself? access=local_traffic_only? I'd prefer [something]=destination. Or are you saying we should ignore these signs altogether? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
2010/1/16 Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com: The main issue that access=destination (i.e. applying to all traffic modes) is wrong - it isn't on the ground, and (quite probably...) isn't even in the legal books. I haven't seen any signs that distinguish between traffic, they just state Local Traffic Only anything else would have to be defined in law, so we are mapping what's on the ground, what isn't on the ground is what the sign means legally. [something]=destination. Or are you saying we should ignore these signs altogether? We're tagging what the sign states, what it means will vary between legal jurisdictions... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, John Smith wrote: We're tagging what the sign states, what it means will vary between legal jurisdictions... __ but first we have to find out what it really means, and what are the restrictions how they compare to other restrictions which routers already understand certainly access=destination sounds more like an oxymoron to me I would have had access=destination_only we understand local_traffic_only because they are our signs, but what does a routing engine understand? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On 15/01/2010, at 8:45 PM, Liz wrote: so perhaps the signs are actually meaningless in law they appear in council minutes so perhaps its a local council job From my searching, it looks like councils are responsible for putting up these signs and I couldn't find any actual legal definition of what they mean too. I did find a couple of reports of requests by residents to get them applies to their streets, and those weren't about noise. They were about kids playing on the street and almost getting hit by vehicles, both cars and bicycles. On access=private, I'd say that foot traffic shouldn't route through there without foot=*. My understanding of private is that it means no access unless you have explicit permission from the owner, so you shouldn't walk there. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
2010/1/16 Liz ed...@billiau.net: On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, John Smith wrote: We're tagging what the sign states, what it means will vary between legal jurisdictions... __ but first we have to find out what it really means, and what are the restrictions I'm not disagreeing, but what they mean will vary, in general they probably aren't good routes to route down so unless you are going there it's probably best to avoid them. From what I gathered from similar threads in the past acess=destination is implied on highway=residential in some areas of Europe, and some routing software would treat it as such. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:10 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: On 15/01/2010, at 8:45 PM, Liz wrote: so perhaps the signs are actually meaningless in law they appear in council minutes so perhaps its a local council job From my searching, it looks like councils are responsible for putting up these signs and I couldn't find any actual legal definition of what they mean too. I did find a couple of reports of requests by residents to get them applies to their streets, and those weren't about noise. They were about kids playing on the street and almost getting hit by vehicles, both cars and bicycles. Interesting, can you post a link? As a cyclist, it never occurred to me to avoid these streets - if anything, I preferred them, as they tend to be quiet, and often quite interesting. For the time being, it might be best to tag them with a specific local_traffic_only=yes or something, so we know exactly what is being encoded. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: For the time being, it might be best to tag them with a specific local_traffic_only=yes or something, so we know exactly what is being encoded. +1. I've emailed QLD gov and Brisbane CC about what the signs mean, though I'm not holding my breath for a response... ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Steve Bennett wrote: On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:10 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote: On 15/01/2010, at 8:45 PM, Liz wrote: so perhaps the signs are actually meaningless in law they appear in council minutes so perhaps its a local council job From my searching, it looks like councils are responsible for putting up these signs and I couldn't find any actual legal definition of what they mean too. I did find a couple of reports of requests by residents to get them applies to their streets, and those weren't about noise. They were about kids playing on the street and almost getting hit by vehicles, both cars and bicycles. Interesting, can you post a link? As a cyclist, it never occurred to me to avoid these streets - if anything, I preferred them, as they tend to be quiet, and often quite interesting. For the time being, it might be best to tag them with a specific local_traffic_only=yes or something, so we know exactly what is being encoded. Steve A [favourite search engine] search for local traffic only gives 844,000 overall so far I have found that local traffic only is not enforceable in Ontario, Ohio and that they are Local Council decisions in NSW, Qld, SA. they may be for special events eg V8 supercars in Townsville last year, or permanent for traffic reduction - excess cars down side streets with any type of resident complaint every example is stuck inside a pdf ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: For roads with e.g. Local Traffic Only or Through Traffic Keep Right signs, should these be tagged with: access=destination (as is, I understand, common practice), OR vehicle=destination, OR something else? Apparently (says DavidDean), Gosmore excludes roads tagged with access=destination when doing FOOT routing... Do the above mentioned signs apply to all traffic (access=*) or just to vehicles (vehicle=*)? Logically, access=destination would apply to all forms of traffic. So you should tag it motor_vehicle=destination, right? Equally logically, a program doing foot routing should probably ignore access=destination anyway. (These aren't definitive answers, just guesses from the definitions.) Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: Logically, access=destination would apply to all forms of traffic. So you should tag it motor_vehicle=destination, right? I don't know. What are you basing that on? Can you legally ride a bike through a Local Traffic Only area? No idea, but I suspect not... The bigger issue is that (I assume) these roads are almost universally tagged with access=destination, which is (it appears) clearly wrong. Equally logically, a program doing foot routing should probably ignore access=destination anyway. That's pretty arbitrary. Should foot routing also ignore access=private? It gets messy. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know. What are you basing that on? Can you legally ride a bike through a Local Traffic Only area? No idea, but I suspect not... I would have thought so, because afaik these rules are to reduce traffic noise. Bicycles not being noisy, I would have thought they weren't included. The bigger issue is that (I assume) these roads are almost universally tagged with access=destination, which is (it appears) clearly wrong. Why is it a problem how everything else is tagged? I'd say access=destination is just less specific Equally logically, a program doing foot routing should probably ignore access=destination anyway. That's pretty arbitrary. Should foot routing also ignore access=private? It gets messy. I should have said would. It does get messy...partially because the real world is messy. Say there was a business park with a boom gate preventing access to unauthorised cars. You might still walk through it. Or you might not. You could trust tags of motor_vehicle=private foot=private more than access=private, I think, but it does leave the problem of having to tag *every possible* vehicle. Steve ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] access=destination
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: I would have thought so, because afaik these rules are to reduce traffic noise. Bicycles not being noisy, I would have thought they weren't included. Maybe, but it's unclear... Anyone good at chasing down legal definitions of road signs? ... I'd say access=destination is just less specific No, access=* applies to ALL transport modes (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access). If this isn't the case in reality, it shouldn't be used, or it should be used in conjunction with foot=*, bicycle=* as appropriate. It does get messy...partially because the real world is messy. Say there was a business park with a boom gate preventing access to unauthorised cars. You might still walk through it. Or you might not. There's two issues: 1) understanding an ambiguous situation on the ground. In this case, we need to find out who the signs apply to. 2) tagging the situation according to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access. In this case, I suspect access=destination is wrong, because I suspect the signs don't apply to pedestrians (and maybe bicycles). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
