Proposed features/maxspeed none
|Rendered as:||not rendered by default|
The object of this proposal is to add the new value "none" to the existing key "maxspeed".
To mark the difference between
- a highway where the maxspeed is not set yet
- a highway where there is no speed limit (like on some motorways in Germany)
the value maxspeed=none is needed.
This is not intended to be used on highways where is a default speed limit if there is no sign (local law applies). This is only to be user where really no speed limit at all is valid.
This is not to be thought as tagging the default value for all Autobahns but accepting the possibility to tag it. Whether or not this is to be tagged for all unlimited Autobahns can be later decided when the default maxspeed for any German motorway (and two carriageway trunks) is decided. If the default is unlimited this won't be present for most of the roads and if the default is not unlimited this is to be present on all those unlimited parts.
There shall be no rendering by default, as this is more important to routing software.
Please add your comments on the discussion page.
- I oppose this proposal. I just don't believe it's necessary. Any road that remains untagged can be thought of as essentially the default for that road type and location. Most countries I've seen seem to use a symbol a bit like this one to mean the same thing - and of course this would apply to unrestricted German Autobahns too. Richard B 12:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. due to its reasoning. Defaults should not be tagged explicitly, to improve visibility of non-defaults and make changing defaults easier. Additionally, if an "unlimited" value is to be introduced, it should be stated to apply to all numeric values, not only to maxspeeds. --Tordanik 17:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Navigation software needs to know if a street has been checked for having no limit or the value is just unknown/untagged. --Phobie 12:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Defaults should not be tagged explicitly, -- Schoos 12:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)"
- I oppose this proposal. default should not be tagged --Zottel 18:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal, without prejudice, pending a practical use case for this specific value.. Chriscf 13:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. for the VALUE itself. but I oppose the fact by giving every way a maxspeed-limit, because it isn't nessecary (see: OSM_tags_for_routing/Maxspeed) --Cbm 17:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. none should be implicit if tag not availible
--Dspies 18:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. same as voter above. Default should be not tagged. Otherwise it should be proposed bridge=no, tunnel=no, ... to distinguish between not tagged tunnel and no tunnel at all. PieSchie 22:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Even if the default is accepted to be none for certain autobahns automatically, it is good to accept that the maxspeed can be unlimited - in theory for any road. If this is not accepted the default for an untagged autobahn must be unlimited. Alv 10:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I white vote this proposal. because I generaly dislike showing something that "is not" with something ( just setting nothing could do ). If this is intended for mappers to show them "you know there are no limit" then see my proposal here Proposed_features/internal_informations_between_mappers that would apply more widly. But still, I'm not voting yes or no since that might be usefull for navigation system, but I don't know which way is best to record this.
- I oppose this proposal. Sets a poor precedent of tagging a default. Chillly 11:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. maxspeed=none is something else than a default maxspeed tag. It means you won't get fined for driving 300 kmh. --Skywave 11:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. The language for tagging has to be rich enough to express even the defaults. --Phicoh 11:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I do not want to invent numbers where speed limits are indicated in words. Same for maxspeed=walk. --Birgit Nietsch 14:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. but like Cbm just as a possible value, but heavily oppose tagging ways with it when the no speed limit is just the default (i.e. only use this value when there's really a sign saying "drive as fast as you want") --Eimai 16:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal... unless an explicit sign "unlimited speed" exists. I suggest
maxspeed=defaultfor quality assurance to differentiate between "unknown" and "no explicit limit" and additional tags to specify the class of the street, applicable law etc. Bomm 19:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. In the context of OSM it makes not much sense to tell people: "you can't tag this". The purpose of proposals like this is to try to reach a consensus about how to tag something, not what to tag. --Cartinus 22:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Dieterdreist 00:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. --MarcusWolschon 05:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. none should be implicit --pmurk65 09:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. MrJott 18:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Doesn't make sense IMHO (same statement to "walk") MichaelK 31:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. "none" is not the same as empty. i would prefer "no" but... --Sergionaranja 15:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I oppose this since nobody seems to agree on what this tag is for. I'd vote yes for a tag to indicate a way where you can drive infinitely fast. --Bobkare 15:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. The proposed term doesn't enforce enough the principles of strict logic. There is a considerable amount of confusion as mentioned before. This should be done better: I'd support a new or altered proposal targeting to maxspeed=infinite or similar too. --Hasienda 22:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
As at close-of-play on 2008-10-26, there are three net votes in opposition, therefore the proposal is rejected. Chriscf 16:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
See also: Proposed_features/Noname