In the jurisdiction I live, I would apply the state’s default residential speed to OSM residential and unclassified highways. I would apply the state’s default 55 MPH for untagged roads to OSM tertiary, secondary, primary and trunk highways. I would apply the state 65 MPH limit for freeways to OSM motorways.
If defaults are at the smallest enclosing administrative boundary probably not required in my area: One of the characteristics of tertiary, secondary, primary and trunk highways within a incorporated municipality and even in built up but non-incorporated areas, is that by law each of those road types must have the speed limit set based on a traffic study and signs are posted based on the decision made following the study. The end result is that non-residential, non-unclassified (using OSM terms) are pretty well signed in urban areas. Tod > On Sep 1, 2017, at 2:21 PM, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Tod, > > Can you clarify what residential and rural roads mean to you? Is a > residential road corresponding to the osm tag? When is a road rural? Can you > determine this for each osm way? > > Regards > > m > > Op 1 sep. 2017 18:53 schreef "Tod Fitch" <t...@fitchdesign.com > <mailto:t...@fitchdesign.com>>: > I take exception to the comment that “there will be too many exceptions to > the rule”. > > In the country I live in each state has a set of “prima facia” speed limits > for various types of roads. Those are basically default speed limits to be > enforced unless otherwise posted by sign. Virtually no residential road in my > state has a speed limit sign but if you exceed 25 MPH you can be ticketed for > speeding. Rural highways are signed only at infrequent intervals, but > exceeding 55 MPH can result in a ticket. > > Given: > A) We should only tag what is on the ground verifiable. By that rule we > should not currently tag these “prima facia” speed limits (no speed limit > sign to verify a maxspeed tag value). > > B) A routing app currently has no way to determine a default speed (one to be > used if no maxspeed=* tag found on way). These can vary by jurisdiction and I > can imagine situations where a national default is overridden by a state > default and/or local municipality default. Should all routing apps go to a > different geographical database to get defaults? If so, why not go to that > other database for everything and ignore OSM? > > It make perfect sense to me to allow administrative areas to be tagged with > default values for otherwise untagged items within the jurisdiction. If > something deviates from the default, as in your “speed limits varies > depending on local topography”, then it will be signed and we should tag per > the sign. But many, many roads in my area are not signed and yet have legally > set maximum speeds. > > At present, I usually ignore the local verifiability constraint and simply > put a maxspeed value on residential roads after I’ve surveyed them even if > they are not signed. If I am feeling a bit more energetic than usual I may > also add a source:maxspeed with a value citing my state’s motor vehicle code. > It would be a lot easier if I could rely on a default value set on my state’s > administrative boundary. > > >> On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Dave F <davefoxfa...@btinternet.com >> <mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi André >> >> Assuming or defining a default should be based on the number of different >> values within the set. >> >> For the examples you give: >> >> maxspeed shouldn't have a default. Apart from on motorway classed roads, >> speed limits varies depending on local topography. There will be too many >> exceptions to the rule. >> >> driving_side is defined nationally so has a default. (I'm sure now someone >> will now provide examples where that's not the case). Any router worth its >> salt, should be able to check which country it is in. >> >> DaveF >> >> >> On 31/08/2017 12:49, André Pirard wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Examples: either each road is tagged with maxspeed=* >>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed> speed limit and >>> driving_side=* <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:driving_side> or >>> there are defaults. >>> I'm reviving this remark because the examples are numerous: >>> The Belgian Flemish community wants to tag maxspeed=* >>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed> on every road instead of >>> using a default. Is this a new specification and where is it written? Must >>> that now be done in every country? >>> The current language= proposition wants to do it without defining defaults. >>> Really? language= on every name= ? >>> Other examples are maxheight in tunnels. Osmose just accused me of someone >>> else's omitting maxheight. It shouldn't be necessary if it's the default, >>> that is if there is no sign for it, but Osmose likes to yell just in case. >>> countless etc. >>> Please choose. >>> >>> Either the defaults are in the OSM database and it takes just a routinely >>> map fetch to get them all updated timely, >>> or each other router (GPS) writer implements them each their own way from >>> various random other files. It's not well clear how contributors ca update >>> all those files instead of OSM and it typically needs a full software >>> update for each little default change, depending on writer's availability. >>> >>> Please choose. >>> >>> There is a Proposed_features/Defaults >>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Defaults> that puts >>> the defaults in OSM and it's an EXTREMELY HUGE mistake to have marked such >>> a paramount good work as abandoned because nobody continued the work. For >>> the sake of OSM, especially routing, please reopen it. >>> I don't claim that it is the good solution but I do claim we should work on >>> such a default database in priority. >>> >>> I didn't analyze it in full depth, but I have the following remarks: >>> - Why not allow the def keyword in the border relation itself? But it could >>> be called zzdef to cluster at the key end. >>> - If a separate relation is preferred, it should be pointed at by a >>> "defaults" role in the corresponding border or other relations so that it >>> can be found. >>> - to ease scanning a border tree upwards, a "parent" relation should exist >>> in border relations. >>> >>> In hope of a well structured OSM, >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> André. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
