Proposal:Learner driver
| Learner driver | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Rejected (inactive) |
| Proposed by: | miklcct |
| Tagging: | access:learner_driver=* |
| Applies to: |  ,  , 
|
| Definition: | The legal access of a highway for learner drivers |
| Statistics: |
|
| Rendered as: | hidden |
| Draft started: | 2016-06-23 |
| RFC start: | 2016-06-24 |
| Vote start: | 2016-08-01 |
| Vote end: | 2016-08-15 |
The proposed feature learner driver is to tag the legal access of a highway by a vehicle driven by a learner driver according to the existence of a traffic sign. It is similar to Key:access#Transport mode restrictions for tagging the legal access by transport mode.
File:Hong Kong road sign 121.gif
Rationale
This key is needed in order to describe the access restrictions of a learner driver, where it seems no other keys can do so.
Tagging
access:learner_driver=* (or transport_mode:learner_driver where transport_mode can be any kind of motor vehicle for restrictions applying to only learners of the specified vehicle)
For values, see access=*. If the key does not exist, the default is assumed to be the legal default when no sign exists.
Application
A routing profile can be set for learner drivers to prevent them from using forbidden roads.
Example
- access:learner_driver=no - A highway which does not allow learner drivers
- bus:learner_driver=no @ (Mo-Sa 07:30-19:30) - A highway which does not allow drivers learning to drive a bus in the specified period
Comments
Please comment on the discussion page.
Voting
I approve this proposal. although I probably won't need this tag any soon, I think the proposed tagging is now ok. --Dieterdreist (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Learner drivers are a User group, and do therefore belong into the value according to the rules for Conditional restrictions. Let's not make exceptions from the rules for no good reason, please. --Tordanik 18:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- this is not a conditional tag according to the conditional tagging rules because there is no ":conditional" keyword. There are already other usergroups as keys in the access system, e.g. disabled. But you are right, a new usergroup could be integrated into the existing conditional access system and handle the case.--Dieterdreist (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Same reason as Tordanik. --Kelerei (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Same reason as Tordanik. I agree with the original idea, not on its implementation. Fanfouer (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. --Waldhans (talk) 21:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Strange that only Germans have voted so far, although the restriction does not exist in that country. Same for me (Austria), but after reading the discussion and documentation I share Tordanik's opinion. Learners are not a "transport mode", but a "user group". That means that the first example (a highway which does not allow learner drivers) would be better encoded as
motor_vehicle:conditional=no@learner_driver, and the second example (a highway which does not allow drivers learning to drive a bus in the specified period) asbus:conditional=no @ learner_driver AND (Mo-Sa 07:30-19:30). I also suggest abbreviating "learner_driver" to "learner", not only because it is shorter and easier, but also because it can then be applied to other transport modes than vehicles as well, e.g. ships, aviation, ski etc., where the term "driver" would be strange. --Fkv (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Voting on this proposal has been closed.
It was rejected with 1 vote for and 5 votes against.