Proposal:Maxspeed walk: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Voting: added comment) |
(→Voting) |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
{{vote|yes}} where it is not implicit --[[User:Kindergaertnaerrin|Birgit Nietsch]] 14:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
{{vote|yes}} where it is not implicit --[[User:Kindergaertnaerrin|Birgit Nietsch]] 14:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC) |
||
{{vote|yes}} where it is not implicit [[User:Alv|Alv]] 06:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
{{vote|yes}} where it is not implicit [[User:Alv|Alv]] 06:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC) |
||
---- |
|||
Voting closed after 5 weeks. With only two net votes in favour, this is rejected. [[User:Chriscf|Chriscf]] 11:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 11:29, 21 October 2008
| maxspeed_walk | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Proposed (under way) |
| Proposed by: | Cbm |
| Tagging: | maxspeed=walk |
| Applies to: | way |
| Definition: | * |
| Statistics: |
|
| Rendered as: | not rendered by default |
| Draft started: | |
| Proposed on: | 2008-08-15 |
| RFC start: | 2008-08-16 |
| Vote start: | 2008-09-16 |
The object of this proposal is to add the new value "walk" to the existing key "maxspeed".
Reasonable:
Lots of laws (e.g. maxspeed in pedestrian precincts, or maxspeed for allowed bicycles on footways) do not set a precise speed, but set 'walking speed' (between 2 and 20 km/h) as applicable law.
This new value is very important to set most-accurate default (local law) maxspeeds. Also See: OSM_tags_for_routing/Maxspeed
Rendering
There shall be no rendering by default, as this is more important to routing software.
Comments
Please add your comments on the discussion page.
Voting
has started.BUT READ DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTE!
I approve this proposal. --Cbm 12:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)- I approve this proposal, useful information, but only where it is not implied by highway value. --Tordanik17:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Beebop 00:07, 07 October 2008 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal, because it breaks the intended use of the maxspeed tag, and leaves us with a value that cannot be used by automated tools for any useful purpose. Chriscf 11:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)- I oppose this proposal, to much work required for a value that is implicit (living street). --Dspies 18:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal, For the reasons pointed out above. If it's not on a living street, just set a reasonable limit. Xeen 21:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. MrJott 09:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal, see Dspies. Rramthun 11:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal, no reason for an extra value that is implicit (living street).--De muur 14:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- maybe it's implicit in living_streets, but it's not implicit for e.g. highway=footway bicycle=yes
- I approve this proposal, for the cases where it is not implicit. --Schuetzm 18:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. where it is not implicit --Birgit Nietsch 14:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. where it is not implicit Alv 06:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting closed after 5 weeks. With only two net votes in favour, this is rejected. Chriscf 11:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)