Proposed features/Practical maxspeed

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Practical maxspeed
Status: Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by: erkinalp
Tagging: maxspeed:practical=*
Applies to: linear
Definition: maxspeed in practice
Rendered as: not rendered except for maxspeed map but parsed
Drafted on: 2009-09-05
RFC start: 2009-09-05
Vote start: 2009-09-19
Vote end: 2009-10-04


This proposal was rejected in a vote but the key is used (more than 12000 uses on objects last modified by 670 different mappers in August 2014, Taginfo ).

See maxspeed:practical=* for definition and usage which differs from the original proposal.

The proposal has been edited since the vote. Archived version of the proposal at the time of the vote.

Rationale

To be used especially in places where other tags are not sufficient to describe what kind of traveling speed could be reasonably expected. Many mountain or rural roads as well as desert tracks do not have posted speed limits and the realistic traveling speed may be severely limited by many factors difficult to describe and difficult to use for calculation by routing software.

Practical does not equal "what is physically possible", which varies by vehicle, but roughly a median speed.

How to map

The name of the key is somewhat misleading - "maxspeed:practical" should be interpreted as "realistic average speed".

Voting

  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Not sensible tagging scheme. --Skippern 03:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal, proposalmaker. An already documented feature in Key:maxspeed. --erkinalp 13:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --Michi 21:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. practical maxspeed depends heavily on weather condition and what car you're using --Zartbitter 15:10 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal., possible maxspeed depens on vehicle weight. Here I would not rely on data collected by another person with another vehicle. This is even no acurate value in reality. I like the idea of rushhour maxspeed. But also not a concret value and I'm much faster with my bike than other with their cars in rushhour. Hmm, I vote no. --Bahnpirat 17:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. -- Dieterdreist 10:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. --turbodog 22:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC) The conditions are too variable to establish a meaningful number except, possibly, in extremely rare situations.
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Use maxspeed... or make it more clear in which caeses pratical maxspeed should be used... --Islanit 06:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Absolutely pointless. Every mapper would tag this different, because everyone thinks there is a different "practical" maxspeed. Why should we want to tag this? --Willem1 16:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. Everthing has been said, its different for every mapper. --Bürste 21:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I oppose this proposal I oppose this proposal. I don't see how this can be measured objectively ... --Tessarakt2 14:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.

1. Weather condition caused changes in maxspeed on all roads- There is no argument.

2. "everyone thinks there is a different "practical" maxspeed"-> not really. When you ask peopole in Nepal or Mongolia how long do you neet to reach another city, you get mostly very exactly answer. This tag shoul be valid for long distances in poor coverage areas..

3. "in which caeses pratical maxspeed should be used" -> For better calcluation of estimated arrival time in navigation apps.

4. "possible maxspeed depens on vehicle weight". In western countries yes. When you´re e.g. in Nepal or parts of South America it does really not matter whether you drive a Porsche or a truck--marek kleciak 10:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Opinions after voting

  • This idea makes no sense, everybody will have a different opinion. I see no attempt to make it even a potentially objective. Additionally unclear and undefined additional syntax makes it impossible to properly process. Bulwersator (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Very good idea for areas without other additional information. This tag can be very helpful to optimize estimated time to arrival in n many parts of the world where the map is not very well captured --Marek kleciak (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC).

See also