Proposal talk:More access keys and values

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I might like access (and motorcar,motorcycle) = limited and access:limitation = "Only with special permit from ....", or "Only for disabled people", as we have on a road I mapped. I know one use the "private" value for that currently, and I do that myself, but it doesn't convey the information that this does. --Vegard 18:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Extending access property

At the moment we're introducing new tags to cover all possible access restrictions, which in my opinion lead to a large clutter of properties, e.g. motorcar, foot, bicycle etc. which are all access restrictions but never can not easily be recognized as such. So I would like to discuss a way how we could make those access tags appear as members of the same tag group.

I've started with this one day Proposed_features/Access_restrictions as a start to make things formal once. But the page needs a lot of work still, and needs a lot of thinking about it as well... --Eimai 20:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep that on my watchlist. --BearT 22:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I would support and help any proposal that tries to group access restriction by members of a group instead of creating more and more values that no one will tag. I didn't say I oppose this proposal, special case must be handle by special tags. But I am already ok with the vehicule=* part of this proposal. (just please list those vehicules)Sletuffe 23:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
You want me to list all vehicles that are meant with the "vehicle" key? Well, just all .. vehicles. Like someone said in another comment, everything that has a driver. Rollerblades probably are no vehicles, but bicycles are. Everything expect pedestrians and horses probably. --Driver2 16:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

A second issue is the restriction for hazardous materials, which is not covered yet. So I would like to add a hazmat=* or access:hazmat=* access property to your list too. --BearT 19:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

except no-one will understand what "hazmat" means :-) Keep it "harzardous_materials", even if that's a long tag name....
btw, in Belgium we also have traffic signs disallowing access for vehicles with materials that can pollute water, and for explosive/inflammable materials. --Eimai 20:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually I stumbled across this sign, where its aim was to protect from water/spring pollution. The other case it's quite often used (here in Austria) is for tunnels. I don't have any idea how to map special restrictions to that sign, eg. inflammable materials only. --BearT 22:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it OK if I add "my" roadsign to the examples section of the page, or should I wait for Driver2 to do so? --BearT 20:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's not exactly part of the proposal. Maybe you could also add a tagging for that case to the list of the proposed values, then it would make sense to add it to the examples. --Driver2 21:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Since you do not want to add new vehicle types (which hazardous_materials would be) I did not add it to your list. Feel free to do so if you feel it would be appropriate. I will not add a new proposal in the next time, since there are now two proposals concerning access restrictions. That should be enough at the moment. -- BearT 20:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Service traffic allowed

In Finland many but not all streets marked with a File:Zeichen 260 - Verbot für Krafträder und Mofas und sonstige mehrspurige Kraftfahrzeuge,StVO 1992.svg motorcar=no + motorcycle=no have an additional sign "service traffic allowed" ("huoltoajo sallittu"). The concept of service traffic is defined in the law and includes lots of things besides the necessary traffic for maintaining and guarding the properties along that road:

  • any delivery traffic for postal and courier services and delivery of heavy objects one can't reasonably be expected to carry.
  • Transporting a person whose mobility or ability to navigate is impaired by age, disability or like.
  • Transporting more than one child under the age of seven, when every adult in the car has more than one such child to supervise.
  • when the driver has a mobility impairment.
  • taxi traffic to pick up/drop off a customer.

Current values don't seem to be exact to describe these. I guess that German signs would use all of taxi frei, Betriebs- und Versorgungsdienst frei, Lieferverkehr frei, (wheelchair) frei, but I might be mistaken and some of those might allow all the required modes...

Is such a concept in use in other countries? Alv 06:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What you describe is similar to the German "Anlieger frei", which is represented by access=destination. --Lulu-Ann 14:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
No, the concepts are overlapping but not the same. For access=destination we have different signs "tontille ajo sallittu", i.e. "driving to premises [which are along this road] allowed". In what I described, not everyone whose destination is there is allowed to drive there and some others are allowed even when their destination is not along that road. (That is not to say that "Anlieger frei" wouldn't be correctly tagged as destination.) Alv 20:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
As far as I understand your description everyone, except the driver with the impairment has at least a temporal destination in that street/area, thus access=destination is fine to all of them. -- BearT 20:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Surprisingly the destinations need not be along the signed road, as it is not mentioned in the decree except for the "necessary for maintenance or guarding" part. (Although it is likely that roads marked as such are eventually dead ends). Also and more importantly, access=destination would allow anyone with a destination to drive there, which is not the case... Alv 11:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


Does delivery also include getting into the area tagged with access=delivery, loading some goods there (not unloading) and bring it out of the area? --Eimai 16:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Local traffic only

It's bizarre this was just mentioned on the talk list. I just noticed this morning some "local traffic only" signs and thought about posting it to the list. The signs indicate that traffic should only enter these streets that is staying there (i.e. not passing through). I think this is important for routing applications. access=local?? --Hubne 11:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it the same as access=destination? --Driver2 12:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
It is.
But, there's a practical issue sometimes that could use some discussion and defining. For example a suburb with three or more entrances and multiple possible winding routes through the suburb, and at two of the entrances signs "no through traffic to name-of-the-street-on-the-other-side". Either
  1. All of the roads within the suburb get access=destination but which is not correct as traffic between the third and the ones with traffic limitation is allowed regardless of destination - and would even nowadays be drawn (@ T@H) as fully blue stitched suburbs.
  2. Only the entrance roads with the restriction signs both get access=destination - do the software cope gracefully with it, that is choose either one of them even when neither of them is the only route to destination and the destination likely is not on that way - there's even a unrestricted route from the third entrance. Example, traffic between A and B is not allowed through the suburb, but otherwise no restrictions.
  3. Someone enters a relation(s), that no software yet recognizes, that specifically forbids use of both of those entrance streets only when used in one route. Alv 16:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not the same. access=destination for example allows a vehicle to enter the location and park there, whereas with access=delivery you have to leave the location again after you've loaded or unloaded your vehicle. --Eimai 18:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Why do you compare access=destination and access=delivery? This was about access=destination and some other value that may or may not be the same. Probably much like 'service' in a section above, similiar but different. --Driver2 16:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Oops, must have been reading the page wrong... my bad. But I have no idea how I got to this virtual discussion I'm replying to :-) --Eimai 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Redundant values

  • The "no vehicles" example is achievable by combinations, though something like motor_vehicle=* which implies values for motorcar=*, motorcycle=*, hgv=*, hazmat=*, etc. would be useful. "No vehicles" doesn't mean you can't cycle down it, for instance.
  • For "deliveries only", this is equivalent to access=destination (where the British formulation is "except for access") - you are only allowed to go down the road if you have a legitimate need to access property. This is regardless of whether you live there, work there, are visiting someone, or have a delivery for them.
  • Similarly, "agricultural vehicles" looks an awful lot like a specific case of access=destination for farms.
  • The bottom example should be highway=cycleway foot=yes. It's generally agreed in the Real World(TM) that highway=path is a Bad Thing(TM).
Chriscf 16:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • In other countries "no vehicles" does mean cycling is prohibited.
  • In other countries "Deliveries only" means "only with cargo you cannot be expected to carry on foot" or "Only postal and courier services with stuff to pick up/deliver".
  • In other countries "agricultural vehicles" is found on, say, public cycleways where where only all the (nearby) farmers' machinery is allowed regardless of their destination - not their or anyone elses motorcars.
  • highway=path has it's uses but agree on that last example.Alv 16:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
If you can find people that are deliberately driving their farm machinery down random cycleways purely because they can, as opposed to because they need to use it to get to their farm, you might have a point. I'm also not convinced that "delivery" is sufficiently distinct from "destination". Chriscf 17:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Just checked the only instance of the "agricultural traffic allowed" that I've found (suppose they're more common in some other countries) was on a cycleway parallel and close to a secondary road and presumably that cycleway has in the past been the only road. So I mixed in my comment vehicles vs. traffic - "agricultural traffic" doesn't allow the farmer to drive the tractor to get to the convenience store (or back) but allows the same (or any) person and the (same) tractor when he's driving to his field... and it could be a pickup he's using or any vehicle, not just a tractor or a combine harvester. In the case I've found there was nothing to stop him from driving on the secondary road, with or without agricultural intent. Maybe someone with more experience with those signs can explain that a bit more. Alv 17:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Time to check things with Belgian legislation :-)
  • over here, the Belgian road sign C3.svg sign means "no access for all drivers in both directions", so it doesn't mention "vehicle", however if we look at definitions in the law "vehicle" means "any means for transportation on land, including all drivable agricultural and industrial rolling-stock", so anything that has a driver. That includes bicycles and animals used for transport. Motorized vehicle is a different concept, that doesn't include them.
  • delivery only ("laden en lossen") is a completely different concept than local traffic only ("plaatselijk verkeer"). The latter is a very well defined concept which for example allows all cyclists and horse drivers (local traffic or not). The former does not.
  • agricultural traffic: not the same as access=destination, since agricultural vehicles don't have to go to a field next to that road to be allowed to enter it (if you're not going to a parcel on that road, you're not allowed to enter if it's local traffic only).
--Eimai 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • motorvehicle=* can be expressed through motorcar=* and motorcycle=*, since mopeds, hgv, goods or hazmat are also either motorcars or motorcycles. motorvehicle=* might also be useful, but vehicle=* would require even more Tags (access=*, foot=*, horse=*), especially tags that not everyone would automatically think of. It's easier to say "this and this is forbidden" (since it's written on a road sign) than to say "everything is forbidden, except everything that is not forbidden, meaning this and this and this..".
  • access=agricultural is similiar to access=destination, just like hgv=* is similiar to motorcar=*. The same goes for access=delivery, it is similiar but not equivalent.

--Driver2 14:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Mopeds are not motorcycles over here. There's a strict definition in traffic law that says whether a vehicle is either a motorcycle or a moped, and a vehicle cannot be both. --Eimai 14:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
btw, "motorized vehicle" is also strictly defined, that's why we need a tag for it. Electric bicycles and segways aren't motorized vehicles for example, even though they have a motor. --Eimai 14:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid it all depends on local law. --Driver2 15:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

access=agricultural vs agricultural=yes

I'm having some trouble finding a good reason why access=agricultural is needed. If a vehicle is for agricultural use, it should officially be registered as an agricultural vehicle (and that includes vehicles that would otherwise be e.g. motorcars or quads). So would access=agricultural allow more vehicles and what's the exact rule given by traffic law? --Eimai 14:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I can only speak for Germany, since I don't know the laws in other countries. agricultural=* (agricultural vehicles) stands for all vehicles that cannot or are not allowed to drive faster than 25kph. That should also include mopeds, not only tractors or other agricultural vehicles. access=agricultural allows everyone and all vehicles to enter if they want to enter for agricultural purpose. A farmer can use his ordinary car to get to his land. access=agricultural is not about a vehicle property, but instead about 'why' someone would want to travel on that way.
The same applies for the other access-values. 'yes' allows all travelling, 'no' none. 'destination' only allows people whose destination is in that area, 'private' only those who know they are allowed to go there (to visit someone they know or something). --Driver2 15:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, if it's needed in some countries. The wiki just needs to say somewhere that the tag is meaningless in other countries :-) --Eimai 15:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we should use "access=no agricultural=yes" and not "access=agricultural" --Phobie 16:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
But is has a different meaning. You don't replace access=destination by bicycle=yes either. --Driver2 17:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Left-hand side is for class, right-hand side for value. "Agricultural vehicles" goes on the left, "agricultural traffic" goes on the right. Chriscf 12:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

tagging scheme

I would propose to have the new tags if they will be accepted in a different scheme like: access:hazmat=* and access:vehicles=*. So it would be more clear that these are used for access regulations. --Patzi 15:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me, but that is something that would have to apply to all access-Tags, not just the ones proposed here. Because of that, I think this would better be discussed on the access talk page. --Driver2 17:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure, all in this scheme would be very nice (and not only on access ;) ), but new ones are easier to change ;) --Patzi 14:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)