Proposal:Tag:traffic calming=dynamic bump

The content of this proposal has been archived to avoid confusion with the current version of the documentation.

View proposal content

The Feature Page for the approved proposal traffic_calming=dynamic_bump is located at Tag:traffic_calming=dynamic_bump

Tag:traffic_calming=dynamic_bump
Proposal status:	Approved (active)
Proposed by:	Klumbumbus
Tagging:	traffic_calming=dynamic_bump Data item
Applies to:	,
Definition:	A dynamic traffic calming whose impact depends on the drivers actual speed.
Statistics:
Draft started:	2019-08-22
Proposed on:	2019-08-22
RFC start:	2019-08-28
Vote start:	2019-10-06
Vote end:	2019-10-20

Proposal

Invention of the tag traffic_calming=dynamic_bump. Add it to this wiki. Retag current osm objects (see below).

Rationale

A new type of traffic calming devices was invented. It is in use already at least in Sweden and Canada and planned in Germany. This type cannot be described properly with the current values listed on traffic_calming=*.

This tag should be used for all traffic calming devices where drivers who adhere to the speed limit are not or only a bit affected by the calming device while drivers who drive faster than the speed limit were affected as intended.

Some devices have a feature that emergency vehicles can deactivate the device so they can pass the device faster without being affected.

Examples

Lowered hatch

The driver speed is measured (e.g. by radar) and depending on the speed a hatch is lowered into the road surface. One example is the Actibump (brand name).

• 
• 
• 
• 

Leaking air

A bump is made of rubber and filled with air which can leak when driving over it slowly. If you drive too fast a valve closes and keeps the air within the bump.

see this article (brand name "TransCalm")

Non-Newtonian fluid

A bump is made of rubber and filled with a Non-Newtonian fluid. Driving faster makes the fluid more viscous ("from water to honey").

see this article

Tagging

Similar to the other traffic_calming values.

Optional maxspeed=* can be added to the object. This of course should be the legal speed limit at the device location, not the actual speed the device is activated. (This could possibly be configured by operator of the device different from the legal speed limit, e.g. a little bit higher, or the device could even be dynamic in the spirit of: little too fast -> little impact, much too fast -> big impact.)

Applies to

Nodes and Ways similar to the other traffic_calming values.

Rendering

Up to the renderer. Possibly similar to the other traffic_calming values.

Features/Pages affected

After the proposal has been approved the following actions will be done:

• Add the tag to the traffic_calming=* page at "By causing vertical deviation" --> post-vote: Done.
• Create traffic_calming=dynamic_bump. --> post-vote: Done.
• Adapt the tagging of the known dynamic_bump objects in the osm database. As these are only a few this will be done manually by hand with JOSM. As of 2019-10-06 these are:

1. these 6 nodes in Linköping and 4 nodes in Malmö in Sweden (which are currently tagged with the brand name as tag value which is not a good solution). --> post-vote: Done by user riiga in Changeset 76009331.

External discussions

• Previous discussion in the german forum.
• Announcement in the swedish forum.
• tagging mailing list.

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

Voting

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was approved with 23 votes for, 3 votes against and 0 abstentions.

88% approval rate. Concerns came up due to the too generic definition, which was clearified with this edit.

• I approve this proposal. --Klumbumbus (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Brian de Ford (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. — AlaskaDave (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Yopaseopor (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Dex2000 (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --RoGer6 (talk) 16:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. sounds reasonable --Polarbear w (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Fizzie41 (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Alesarrett (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I am all fine with the tag name, if it was proposed for a dynamic bump alone, but the current wording states This tag should be used for all traffic calming devices where drivers who adhere to the speed limit are not or only a bit affected by the calming device while drivers who drive faster than the speed limit were affected as intended. and this is far too generic I believe. If this is the intention, the tag should be called something like traffic_calming=dynamic_device or similar. —Dieterdreist (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --HillWithSmallFields (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC) but as Dieterdreist says, please keep it specific to dynamic bumps
• I oppose this proposal. Firstly because the definition is too vague and secondly because the hatches look and function quite different from the fluid and air bumps (hatches aren't bumps). --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

regarding the wording "bump" see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-August/047772.html --Klumbumbus (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. But I also agree with Dieterdreist's comment. --Dr Centerline (talk) 00:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. I think this transports the dynamic nature of the bump quite well, regardless of actual technology used. --Gormo (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Highflyer74 (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Riiga (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Think about actuator=* to state how the bump gets its motion Fanfouer (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Cg909 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC) but agreeing with Dieterdreist, the wording all traffic calming devices is a bit too broad
• I approve this proposal. --LeifRasmussen (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Gendy54 (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. per Dieterdreist, though it should be fixable with changing definition after voting (I assume that this mismatch is no intentional) --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

yes, it is meant for traffic calmings "causing vertical deviation" only. I plan to make that clear in the definition after voting. --Klumbumbus (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --Michi (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Sdicke (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --GiantOSM (talk) 11:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Jakob48 (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Doublah (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)