In an effort to try to document the outcome of this discussion, I've updated https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Local_Traffic_Only though if any one still feels this isn't the best way to tag this feature, please speak up.
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 10:26, Ian Sergeant <[email protected]> wrote: > What does "official" mean? It's official, in that the signs are placed by > the local council. However they are not enforceable, because no law > (regulation, etc) gives them a legal meaning. > > There is no definitive list of street signs that are advisory vs > enforceable. But the RMS has a partial list on their website, and the > definitive is the Australian Road Rules (as in various state legislation). > > Councils use them to discourage local streets for through use. They > advise drivers that they aren't a main road - and they may have traffic > calming, etc on them and be otherwise unsuited in design for through use. > They aren't used at all in many (most?) council areas. > > In some cases, they may also have a reduced speed-limit on the same sign. > That would be enforceable. > > It's pretty low value information to capture in OSM. But the signs exist, > so we can capture them - but a access restriction would be inappropriate. > I've said before I agree with Andrew's proposed tagging for discouraged > access. > > Ian. > > On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 06:38, Sebastian S. <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So the sign is put up by the council. Is it not an official sign? >> >> Could someone elaborate on the legal side mentioned here. E.g. is there >> catalogue of street signs in the road rules and this one is not among them? >> >> Are people confusing lax enforcement of the sign with it having no legal >> meaning? >> >> On 9 November 2019 11:37:49 am AEDT, Andrew Harvey < >> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 02:24, Mateusz Konieczny <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Why it would be irrelevant? >>>> >>> >>>> access tag family is for legal access (with some space for officially >>>> discouraged access), >>>> access=destination is for "transit is illegal", not "local residents >>>> dislike transit traffic". >>>> >>>> OSM is not a place to add a nonexisting ban on transit traffic >>>> >>> >>> Yeah realised this later, see my other post in this thread at >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-November/013188.html, >>> which I suggested motor_vehicle:advisory=destination to tag a suggested or >>> advised but maybe not legally enforceable destination only restriction. >>> >>> On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 01:55, Mateusz Konieczny <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Is it "local traffic only" as in "resident only" or "no transit"? >>>> >>>> Is permission required to enter this area? >>>> >>>> AFAIK there is no tagging scheme for distinguishing "only with >>>> permission of >>>> homeowner" and "available to all residents of closed community". >>>> >>> >>> It just means this road is indented to be used if you're traveling to >>> somewhere along this road, but not if you're just driving through as a >>> shortcut. >>> >>> It's still public land, not private property. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-au mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
