Proposal:Conditions for access tags

This proposal is now abandoned since Conditional restrictions is in use.

Conditions for access tags
Proposal status:	Abandoned (inactive)
Proposed by:	Tordanik
Tagging:	maxspeed:<condition>, access:<condition>, ...=*
Applies to:	*
Definition:	an access tag only applies if the condition is fulfilled
Statistics:
Draft started:	2009-01-24
RFC start:	2009-01-28

This proposal contains some extensions to existing access tagging. They all use an existing key (such as maxspeed and access), but append a condition, separated by a colon (":").

This proposal has been superseded by the Extended conditions for access tags proposal.

A number of alternate solutions have been proposed. For a full list see Proposed_features/Advanced_access_tags. Update Oct-2012: The Conditional Restrictions proposal was approved by a majority vote.

Possible conditions

German add-on sign "when wet"

German add-on sign "hgv"

This section lists all proposed key extensions.

By vehicle category

Examples include:

• :hgv - heavy goods vehicles
• :motorcycle - motorbikes
• (many others...)

Any vehicle category (as listed on Key:access) is a possible condition. The access tag is then only valid for vehicles from that category.

By road condition

• :wet - access tag is only valid when the road is wet

By lighting condition

• :night - access tag is only valid at night (in darkness)

By direction

• :forward - access tag is only valid in way direction
• :backward - access tag is only valid against way direction

(Note that this is different from lane-specific information: There are ways with direction-dependent restrictions that do not have multiple lanes. There also can be multiple lanes for each direction.)

Evaluating "conflicting" tags

1. More specific information overrides more general information (for a wet road, maxspeed:wet overrides maxspeed).
2. If there are conflicting tags without a "specificness" hierarchy, the most restrictive rule (e.g. lowest maxspeed) is to be chosen.

Examples

Tagging	Interpretation
maxspeed=100 maxspeed:hgv=60	Maxspeed is 100 km/h for most vehicles, but 60 km/h for hgv traffic:
maxspeed=120 maxspeed:wet=80	Maxspeed is 120 km/h under normal conditions, but 80 km/h when the road is wet:
motor_vehicle=no psv=yes oneway=yes bicycle=no hour_on:bicycle=10:00:00 hour_off:bicycle=18:00:00	Bicycles are permitted to use this street outside 10AM-6PM, but not during most of the day. Other modes of transport have different rules applicable to them. Based on Queen Street in Oxford UK. (Note that the follow-up proposal "Extended conditions for access tags" removes the need for hour_on/off, replacing it with the more flexible opening_hours value syntax.)

Notes

existing tagging

Some existing tags could be expressed with conditions, for example

• oneway=yes is equivalent to access:backward=no
• cycleway=opposite is equivalent to oneway:bicycle=no
• ...

This proposal does not deprecate those widely used tags.

way direction dependency

The following tags affected by this proposal depend on way direction:

• tags with ":forward" or ":backward" as part of the key
• tags starting with direction-dependent main keys (e.g. "oneway:...")

Editors should include those tags in their way reversal safety checks.

Debate

Comments

Please use the talk page.

Opinion Poll

Please indicate whether you like the proposal (using {{Poll|yes}} or {{Poll|no}}). You can add a short comment, but please use the talk page where appropriate.

• I like this proposal. --Tordanik 19:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• I unsure about this proposal, isn't this a poll over something that have been in use for some time? I don't see this to clearify anything about it. This is neither a yes or no. --Skippern 20:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• I like this proposal. --Dieterdreist 20:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• I like the idea, except this: this proposal. It really should be bicycle:oneway=* instead of oneway:bicycle=*. "Bicycle" is not the scope here, but "oneway" is (remember that "bicycle" is short for "bicycle_access" and has the same semantics as access=*, and you don't want to allow oneway:access=* either as equivalent of oneway=* since access includes all ways of transport -- as such, "oneway" is in the scope of "access" and should thus be seen as access:oneway=*) (I have the same comment about tags like maxspeed:hgv=*) --Eimai 20:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• I like this proposal.--Kaitu 21:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• I unsure about this proposal, because I don't know how to tag the combination "Bei Nässe nur für LKW 60 km/h" or "When wet only for HGV 60 km/h". --AndreR 21:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• I don't like this proposal., which you may treat as a {{Poll|yes}} if it allows us to use the opening_hours=* syntax with modes and conditions, e.g. access_hours:bicycle=* or similar --achadwick 22:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC) updated 25 Apr 2011
• I like this proposal. --Driver2 22:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• I like this proposal., as I thought this is what people did already when existing tags were too limited. However I agree with Eimai that vehicle type should come before restriction --EdLoach 08:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
• I like this proposal. --Hawke 20:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• I like this proposal. --Ersthelfer 12:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• I unsure about this proposal, because it should be extended to handle more complicated conditions in general (see comment of AndreR or example 22:00-06:00 60km/h for hgv. Do we need nested tags?). --Bomm 20:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that this restriction could be represented as a combination of hour_on:hgv=T1, hour_off:hgv=T2, and maxspeed:hgv=S with this system. The meaning of hour_on/hour_off is that the global restriction applies between the started times. By analogy, the qualified version means that the qualified restriction applies between the started times. Easy; see the example for bicycles. --achadwick 20:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• I like this proposal. --Seehundeführer 08:14, 07 June 2009 (UTC)
• I like this proposal. --Longbow4u 09:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC) On e.g. maxspeed=forward:60 there is the problem if a later user changes the direction of ways for other reasons, e.g. rendering of the name tag. Then the maxspeed tag would be wrong in both directions. Perhaps for this case there should be a warning implemented in the OSM editors: "Warning! There is a direction depending tag (link to "direction depending tag") in the ways you are going to change. Are you sure you want to proceed? YES NO"

JOSM already does that, but only if the key begins with 'forward:' or 'backward:' Alv 10:33, 7 June 2009

(UTC)

• I like this proposal. --m0ep 10:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• I like this proposal. i would tagg those complex combinations (see AndreR) with "maxspeed:hgv:wet=60" --plexi32 09:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• I like this proposal. --Alkab 17:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• I like this proposal. But I don't like hour_on=* and hour_off=*! Better use the opening_hours=* syntax!

--Phobie 11:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't like this proposal. -- But my vote becomes yes if hour_on=* and hour_off=* is replaced by opening_hours=* Sletuffe 12:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
• I like this proposal. But I would also like to see the use of opening_hours=*, as it is already fully developed and more extensive than the proposed scheme. Sebastiaan 13:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• I like this proposal. iff hour_on=* and hour_off=* is replaced by opening_hours=* --Kay_D 09:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
• I like this proposal. --Kslotte 00:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• I don't like this proposal. -- But my vote becomes yes if hour_on=* and hour_off=* is replaced by opening_hours=* --Tessarakt2 14:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
• I like this proposal. --BBO 09:57, 9 August 2010 (BST)
• I like this proposal. if hour_on=* and hour_off=* are replaced by opening_hours=* --Yzemaze 14:30, 13 August 2010 (BST)
• I don't like this proposal. because hour_on=* and hour_off=* should be replaced by opening_hours=*. Sarge 16:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
• I like this proposal.--Plamen 18:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• I like this proposal.--Glue 22:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
• I like this proposal.--Nfgusedautoparts 22:26, 24 April 2011 (BST)
• I like this proposal. Sarge 15:24, 5 May 2011 (BST)
• I don't like this proposal. --Flaimo 08:17, 6 May 2011 (BST) transportation modes are not conditions

For those who want opening_hours syntax instead (and I'm one!): would you be happy with the term access_hours, and to allow qualifications like access_hours:psv=*? Calling the access times for a road "opening hours" sounds wrong to me as a native English speaker, "access times" has a better ring to it, and "access hours" seems like a good compromise that echoes the opening_hours=* name. --achadwick 20:18, 25 April 2011 (BST)

Don't forget that access_hours wouldn't solve things like time-based maxspeeds. And any solution that works for time-based maxspeeds will also work for access, rendering the special solution for access redundant. --Tordanik 09:52, 6 May 2011 (BST)

See also

• Extended conditions for access tags: add-on proposal that offers some missing features requested during the poll