Proposal talk:Key:headlight

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Good proposal, a bit American-centric

Overall I think this proposal is a good idea. I know it's a common requirement to use headlights in many tunnels in Europe in countries where it's not a requirement to use headlights all day, so I can see the tag has its uses. I would suggest looking a bit more at practice in European countries, as it stands now the proposal is very American-centric with its reference to the MUTCD only. The tag name works good I think as well, though I'm not sure about the end value. You would put the tag on the way(s) where it applies, so there's no need to tag where it ends. Riiga (talk) 07:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed the end tag, and added examples of Signage in Spain. I will continue researching practices in other countries. --Tysseract (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I was unable to find signage from other countries but the proposal now discusses the fact that roads in countries where headlights are always required should not be tagged (and that the country can be tagged instead) --Tysseract (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Riiga: I added some more signs from around the world to the proposal, based on Commons:Category:Diagrams of headlamps regulatory road signs. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Adopt headlight=* usage

Although daytime_headlight=* is good for a specific instruction that's signed, headlight=* can possibly be more comprehensive. In MUTCD/R#R16:_Seat_Belts_and_Headlight_Use, there is a daytime_headlight:wet=* idea, and you have daytime_headlight=rain. This would be handled as *:conditional=* @ (wet) by standard. You mentioned "Daytime headlight sections generally require full headlights, not just the Daytime Riding Lights common on many modern cars." in Proposed_features/Key:daytime_headlight#Proposal, but this may not be obvious to everyone. Terminology on "headlight"s can also vary Explicitly stating this would be clearer. Another possible application is that use dipped/low beam light, no high beam light, or use high beam light are common requirements in longer tunnels (ie no short underpasses) or urban streets. Incorporating this would make this tag more widely useful. In fact, headlight=* from Proposed_features/Headlights stems from the requirement of high beam in carparks.

I suggest using headlight:high=* and headlight:low=* (reserving possibly for other lights). *=required will be defined as the minimum requirement. *=yes will be it is allowed.

  1. Daytime headlight: daytime_headlight=required --> headlight:low:conditional= required @ (dusk - dawn)
  2. No high beam light: headlight:high=no
  3. Use dipped/low beam light: headlight:low=required
  4. Use high beam light: headlight:high=required
  5. Raining: daytime_headlight=rain --> headlight:low:conditional= required @ (wet)

-- Kovposch (talk) 10:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm definitely open to changing the tag to headlight=* to keep it open for the highest possible future flexibility/specificity, however for this use case (US and similar daytime headlight sections), I think using conditionals for daytime (such as in headlight:low:conditional= required @ (dusk - dawn)) is overly complicated and possibly confusing since headlights are assumed to be required at night, and this tagging might suggest an exception for the road. Unnecessarily complex tagging schemes make it harder for people to know how to tag and therefore make people less likely to tag as well as make it harder for data consumers to code for every edge case.
The full tagging of headlight=* is way beyond the scope of my proposal but my updated solution for Daytime Headlight sections is headlight:low=required to indicate low beams are always required on the signed roads (regardless of time/weather). That said, even though it's really beyond the scope of my original proposal, I like headlight:low:conditional=required @ (wet) or better headlight:low:conditional=required @ (raining) because the law is low-beams are required while it is actively raining or while using wipers, not while the road is wet.
These changes would not unnecessarily complicate my proposal but leave the headlight=* tag open for future proposals regarding headlight:high=required in carparks or headlight:high=no in such situations as they are forbidden
I also would like to suggest more clear tag values for future proposals:
headlight:low=yes and headlight:low=no seem too vague or potential points of confusion. Does yes mean required or allowed? Does no mean not required or disallowed? these are not as immediatly obvious as they are with the other values.
--Tysseract (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
P.S. I am unsure how to change the page title/URL of the proposal post-creation so I hope that can be dealt with after voting
--Tysseract (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
You are correct about headlight:low:conditional= required @ (dusk - dawn). I made it up for illustrative purpose only, or if this is needed to be tagged explicitly. However, although your criticism about *:conditional=* @ (wet) is very true, currently this is accepted as interchangeable, as shown in Key:maxspeed#Examples last row to be maxspeed:conditional=60 @ wet for File:Maxspeed-wet.png. There are only 36 maxspeed:conditional=* @ (* rain *) instances. This should really be discussed separately along wipers. ---- Kovposch (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@Tysseract and Kovposch: The MUTCD doesn't specify the distinction between "When Raining" and "When Using Wipers" but instead leaves it up to each state based on state laws. [1] I haven't looked into it closely, but my guess is that northern states would post "When Using Wipers", because wipers are used not only when it rains but also when it snows. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 23:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

please explicitly note that using it to repeat default in unwanted

Please, state explicitly that if default in entire country is to use headlight then tagging it on every single road is invalid and in such cases it should be removed. Though tagging on country itself may be a good idea, I did it for Poland - https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/107961433 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

good clarification
--Tysseract (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I would like to make the same argument for tunnels (any highway=* feature with tunnel=*). I assume that for most (all?) countries the use of headlights in tunnels should be considered default and additional explicit tagging shouldn't be necessary.--Kjon (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
From what I can find, the only US state which requires headlights in all tunnels is Massachusetts. I live in California and a few tunnels have headlights required signs while many do not. I would also suggest that most use cases of the headlight=required tag would benefit from it being explicitly stated on the tunnel way. For example, a navigation app that reminds drivers to turn on their headlights would benefit from that notification before a tunnel (even if that is the default) so that the driver doesn't forget. Or a study looking into traffic collisions on tunnels signed to require headlights vs those that are not would benefit from the tagging. --Tysseract (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, it's one thing for headlight usage to be mandated nationwide on all roads, as in Poland – some routers would already be capable of handling such rules. But a more nuanced nationwide rule only mandating them on certain kinds of roads (such as tunnels) would be more difficult, and thus more unlikely, to support.

By the way, there are only four places in California that post daytime headlight requirements. Most are not tunnels, but one is a long tunnel. There's also this tunnel with a nonstandard warning sign advising (but not legally requiring) the use of headlights.

 – Minh Nguyễn 💬 09:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

They must be getting more common since 2003 because I know 14 miles of CA 118 and 32 miles of CA 154 (and I think part of CA 1 but I'm not sure) are Daytime Headlight Sections, and at least one tunnel on CA 33 is marked with orange signs. And that's just Santa Barbara/Ventura county highways (and not extremely windy ones at that). But thanks for the article, it'll be a good place to start tagging once approved :D
And I think these tunnel examples go to show the variety in sineage and therefore tagging. On some tunnels headlight=required, on some headlight=recommended, and on some headlight=allowed. --Tysseract (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
IIRC in several central European countries, headlights are mandatory in all "inside streets", so we'd need to map it in all tunnels, galleries, multi-storey car parks, underground carparks, etc. Doing this mapping manually will very likely lead to incomplete & inconsistent mapping. Adding a check to QA tools like the one before upload in JOSM does help to not forget, but still requires manual mapping and is not easier to implement than implementing the very same logic in navigation softwares etc. What do you think about an agreed, explicitly mentioned conditional value or a dedicated tag on administrative level like federal state or country? That would make it easy to implement and require very little manual tagging. --Schoschi (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Schoschi: I think the point of this key is record the headlight requirements that are remarkable (especially when indicated by local signage). If headlights are mandatory on any "inside street" nationwide, then the requirement on any given street is unremarkable and thus less important to support in navigation software anyways. If you're interested in tagging the more nuanced driving rules on administrative boundaries, this proposal shouldn't stop you from doing so, but it seems to be outside the scope of this proposal. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 19:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Page title

The proposal page title ("Key:daytime_headlight") no longer matches the key that is being proposed. I suggest moving the page. This will automatically leave a redirect behind so that old links still work. --Tordanik 21:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know it was that easy to fix --Tysseract (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Brackets in conditional value

According to the usual rules for conditional restrictions, round brackets aren't necessary for single-word conditions like "raining". Not that they're wrong (properly implemented software should handle both), but headlight:conditional=required @ raining might be a more common way to tag it. --Tordanik 21:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've changed it to headlight:conditional=required @ wet seeing as that seems to be the more accepted tag anyway --Tysseract (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Rationale for 'headlight' singular

Why 'headlight:...' and not 'headlights:...'? I know that a motorbike only has one, but it reads a bit strange to me Jnicho02 (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jnicho02: You're right, it does read a bit awkwardly. MUTCD/R listed daytime_headlight=* based on existing usage, and it seems Tysseract took inspiration from either that or existing usage of headlight=* in the database. I don't know who originally coined either key, but I'm guessing it was a shortening of the "daytime headlight area" phrase used on MUTCD signs. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 19:13, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I honestly mostly chose the singular because of Kovposch's comment, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Key:headlight#Adopt_headlight=*_usage
I did think about it a little bit because it does sound a little weird, but it seemed like most tags were singular (foot=*, bicycle=*, motor_vehicle=*, etc.) and ultimately I didn't see any true advantage one way or another. --Tysseract (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Or would you want headlighting=* for the action/status? ---- Kovposch (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to go through the trouble of changing it from the singular noun now that it's already in voting status (no changes can be made without a revote). --Tysseract (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Kovposch: "Headlighting" refers to the lighting produced by a headlight. "Headlight" isn't ever used as a verb in English as far as I'm aware, so "headlighting" wouldn't be a gerund. If we ever revisit this issue in the future, either headlights=* or headlight_use=* would be more idiomatic, but I personally don't see it as a big deal. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 01:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

headlight=prohibited is not that uncommon

Just a note, the wiki page says that headlight=prohibited "will probably never be used, but should be supported for completeness and extremely rare cases". In New Zealand it is fairly common for military checkpoints to discourage or even ban headlights since they blind the guards. The sign sometimes looks like this --Kylenz (talk) 08:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Its to difficult to record all local informations

Its to difficult to record all local informations. Exempel: is it enough to lut THE headlite och havet you to lit even THE Backlight? Sweden t.ex. allows you to lit att "position light" ö useing THE normal headlite.... --Skinfaxi (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Skinfaxi: Most (if not all) of the countries in the table above don't literally mean just the headlights, even though the sign only depicts or mentions headlights. In Sweden, is there a situation where using the headlights is required but tail lights is not, or vice versa, and is that even possible in standard cars? If so, that would justify a tail_light=* key; otherwise, that doesn't seem to be a particularly major issue. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 07:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
the proposed key headlight=required simply means that you are required to have headlights on (including daytime running lights which do not activate the rear lights). Keys detailing the specifics of the type of headlight required or forbidden are far outside this proposal, but the possibility for future proposals was left open with tags like headlight:low=*, headlight:high=*, headlight:drl=*, headlight:hight:conditional=*, etc. --Tysseract (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@Tysseract: i think in most cases means a sign "light on" means that you have to turn on the carlight including the backlights. Such signs are for example used in Sweden in tunnel sections. Its Not Logic top warn Just the Traffic in Front of you bit not THE Cars Back of you att dangerous places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinfaxi (talk • contribs) 08:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@Skinfaxi: Yes, but the proposed headlight=required doesn't mean tail lights aren't required to be turned on, and it doesn't mean that tail lights must be kept off. On most signs and in most laws, tail lights are assumed to be on whenever headlights are on, so it's unnecessary to explicitly tag a tail light requirement. In principle, a navigation application could respond to headlight=required by reminding the user to turn on their tail lights too, but that would probably be considered excessive. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 04:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

MUTCD pages updated

I've updated MUTCD/R#R16: Seat Belts and Headlight Use and MUTCD/California/S#S30: Daylight Headlight Section to reflect this proposal's approval. However, I did not change  R16-5 to headlight:conditional=required @ wet as specified by the proposal. Instead, the table now suggests the speculative tag headlight:conditional=required @ wipers, because windshield wipers may be required in conditions besides rain, such as snow, dense fog, and dust. [2][3] This sign and  R16-6 are merely strategically placed reminders of state law, so the headlight:conditional=* tags should go on the state boundary relations rather than individual roads. – Minh Nguyễn 💬 07:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposal_talk:Key:headlight&oldid=2514968"