On 02/09/2019 14:58, David Woolley wrote:
On 02/09/2019 14:48, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Sometimes they want us to add a "vehicle=no" to a track that has
absolutely no signposts whatsoever locally, meaning that nobody can
verify that vehicles are forbidden and no local motorist would be turned
away
This could conflict with a trend that I believe is developing, at least
for more formal roads, of removing signage, because it distracts
drivers, and relying on satellite navigators to provide the information
instead.
That's certainly not a trend in the UK. At the moment, the problem is
the opposite: how to ensure that people obey the signs rather than
following sat-nav. For example:
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/lorry-driver-sat-nav-nightmare-683052
One of the issues with relying on sat-nav is that the device data often
isn't updated very often. Unless the government can impose some kind of
legally binding SLA on the device manufacturers to ensure that all data
updates are performed within a specified period of time, then you can't
rely on people having current information. If a road is closed, then
people need to know it's closed from the moment it's closed - waiting
for their navigation software to update isn't good enough!
Whilst this probably doesn't currently apply to prohibitions, a logical
extension, at some time in the near future, might be to make the
electronic map definitive in all cases.
If we ever do get a situation where the electronic map is the definitive
record of prohibitions and other relevant mapping data, then it will
need to be available via an open licence (presumably OGL, here in the
UK). So presumably we'd be able to import that directly into OSM via an
API call or data dump. But it would probably need a set of specific tags
that don't conflict with those used by people mapping from observation.
Mark
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
