Talk:Tag:highway=living street

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • I think the best way is to tag it as "highway=pedestrian" motorcar=yes "maxspeed=...", because it describes the reality nearly the best --Cbm 12:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Many of the comments miss the IMHO essential "bicycle=yes", motorcycle=yes - and they ignore the difference of tolerated motorcars/motorcycles, while the right of way is given to pedestrians and slow bicycles. There's no fixed, precise speed limit - thus the assumption of 7 km/h is a good guess. It should be taken into account for routing software. But it should not be written down within tags, if not required. "highway=living_street" includes all of the other stuff, while otherwise you have to write down every time:

  • highway=pedestrian
  • bicycles=yes
  • motorcycles=permissive
  • motorcars=permissive
  • maxspeed=7 km/h
  • psv=yes

... and maybe extra tags for right of way and parking. --Traut 15:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments before 2007-11-04

If we want this to be of relevance outside Germany (or any other specific country that has a similar classification) we need to avoid the automatic inference of a 7km/h limit or any other locally specific restriction. What's described is a street class more like pedestrian than residential (in that they certainly shouldn't be used in routes), and there may be a place for this. However, could we not also tag as pedestrian but with motorcar=yes and maxspeed=7? --Mackerski 14:02, 19 July 2007 (BST)

Currently, I am tagging a "Spielstrasse" in Germany with the following tags:

  • highway = residential
  • maxspeed = 7

I agree that this is not the full information, but it comes pretty close. I would like to know if other countries have something similar. If so, it might make sense to create this new tag. Otherwise, I would like to stick with the normal tags. We don't want to make it to confusing for routing applications for example. RalfZ 14:37, 19 July 2007 (BST)

I'd rather see highway=residential and then some extra tag - even livingstreet=yes - than invent yet another new value for highway= , which all renderers and routers would need to recognise. Morwen 14:39, 19 July 2007 (BST)
Mh. This is good and bad, because someone might think, not routing trough such a street is better then handling it as a normal residential street. Ramack 08:26, 18 August 2007 (BST)
I concur with Morwen and I'd even say: If different countries have their own versions of these areas - some with an associated speed limit, some with associated give-way rules, whatever - then why don't we start country-specific tagging here? Like keeping highway=residential (for compatibility) and then adding "de:wohnstrasse=yes" (whatever), and "nl:woonerf=yes" and what-have-you? Because a "Woonerf" is not exactly the same as a "Wohnstrasse" or "Spielstrasse"; why should we needlessly sacrifice precision and say they're the same? The sign suggested under "rendering" is a German sign anyway and nobody else will know it, so it could never be used if we try to use the same tag internationally. It's high time to start country-specific tagging anyway, we will need that in a lot of other areas as well. --Frederik Ramm 14:59, 19 July 2007 (BST)
I second Frederik here. Let's not invent completely new highway tags, just because parking might not be allowed here. Use highway=residential and add what's needed to clarify. That might well be a de:Spielstrasse=yes, but could also just clarify the restrictions: maxspeed=7 and parking=no (or something) seems to capture the essence pretty well IMHO. --spaetz 16:30, 19 July 2007 (BST)
For country-specific, can I suggest to use the country code in capitals - this would distinguish from the language-code used for name variants atm (which is in lowercase). Morwen 19:38, 19 July 2007 (BST)
With this tag it would be easy to see which streets need to wriggle :-) Dotbaz 20:32, 19 July 2007 (BST)
In switzerland we also know this Spielstrasse, but the tempo limit is maxspeed=20. While most residential streets are limited to maxspeed=30 there is also a difference with parking and the absolute antecedence of the pedestrians (means: children). --Andy 22:30, 19 July 2007 (BST)
In Spain it's called "Calle residencial", with the same traffic sign as in Germany (AFAIK, signs are unified in EU). I agree with Morwen in using a generic property tag (livingstreet=yes is fine to me), and I'd let international variants to be managed via the is_in key if needed. And, just to add confusion: Here we have the "Zona a 30" (30 area), as an intermediate between living street and normal residential street --Xuacu 03:41, 4 August 2007 (BST)
Living street sign is not a Vienna convention sign. It is introduced afterwards. Erkin Alp Güney (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but all the alternatives I've read so far would be just a hack. A "verkehrsberuhigter Bereich" is NOT highway=pedestrian! Pedestrianizations are only allowed to enter by car to load/unload stuff at certain hours, while VB is usually available for passing all the time (but only at very low speeds). So highway=pedestrian just doesn't fit, it's a completely different thing. Parking on VB *is* allowed on designated spaces, so parking=no is also wrong.

It seems that this concept of VB isn't unique to germany (at least switzerland and the netherlands have similiar). So what I would like to avoid is to have about "20" different tags for these streets. A renderer rule looking like: "DE:Wohnstrasse or NL:woonerf or CH:Spielstraße or ES:... or ..." doesn't look very appealing to me. This reminds me of "GB:motorway or DE:Autobahn or NL:... etc.", the concept is the same in lot's of countries, but the actual rules depend on local law. So renderers should have a knowledge of this *concept* (as rendering this "VB" stuff different than other residential streets makes *much* sense to me) not of the actual local consequences (speed limit, parking, ...).

I'm not voting against localized tagging, but there should be *good* reasons for it. Please keep in mind: Localized tags will make it *much* harder for renderers to do their job. Ulfl 01:01, 20 July 2007 (BST)

I think we should not add maxspeed=7 (or whatever) tag, if we have a livingstreet tag (may it be a highway=livingstreet or highway=residential&livingstreet=yes) but have some set of rules which say "in Germany livingstreet implies maxspeed=7 in Switzerland maxspeed=20, ..." Ramack 08:26, 18 August 2007 (BST)

I like the proposal. The traffic rules may vary, but the concept seems to exist in many countries. If the map qualifies a street, an application or a user can locally translate the tag into a meaning. I disagree with a special icon, because this would mean to start reproducing all traffic signs. Archimedeus 21:40, 2 October 2007 (BST)

Doesn't the UK have 'Home Zones'(ie 20mph limits) and 'Quiet Lanes', usally associated with trafic calming methods? ShakespeareFan00 23:20, 22 October 2007 (BST)

Voting ended

Is this the common procedure how a voting ends? The date was given as 2008-??-?? only and there's no summary about how many people voted which way. --Traut 12:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments and votes copied from the page after approval

Comments

I've included most of the former comments into an updated proposal and moved the former discussion to the discussion page. The only thing really left open was how to do the actual tagging. The alternatives mentioned are:

  • highway=residential, maxspeed=7 (just as done before)
  • I did this before, but I'm unhappy. Reason is that in Germany pedestrians do have priority over vehicles. Therefore regular through passing traffic should be excluded. Alternative tagging could be "highway=pedestrian" with "motorcar=yes" and "maxspeed=7". Vanagaudi 20:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • highway=residential, livingstreet=yes (I don't see real benefits to the proposal on this page, but as a drawback this adds a new concept)
  • highway=residential, de:wohnstrasse=yes (or nl:woonerf=yes or, ... - which makes the rendering / routing even harder)

Add comments here, especially further national differences would be interesting. -- Ulfl 18:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Would it be better to use highway=residential with extra tags? Adding more values to highway= means that every renderer and router needs to be updated, when it's really still a highway=residential. (the first paragraph actually says that it's highway=residential + speed=? + parking=? + traffic_rules=?) Ojw 19:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I would see this kind of street as a subset of highway=residential, so the highway=residential, livingstreet=yes (or a similar variation) would make the most sense to me. Gravitystorm 19:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree, but living streets should be rendered differently from residential highways and excluded by routing engines for through passing traffic. I propose that living streets are a subset of "highway=pedestrian" or an own class "highway=living_street", whatever is a better choice for renderer and routers. Vanagaudi 20:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Routing engines will ignore living streets all by themselves if they're tagged with maxspeed=7 Sircus 14:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • IMO, "highway=living_street" is the best solution for this type of street. It is a street, where cars are just tolerated, but it is definitely not "highway=pedestrian". So I strongly vote for "highway=living_street" as an own class. motp
  • This boils down to a new class of street and how to tag it. Using highway=living_street simply extends the current highway concept. Using highway=residential, livingstreet=yes would add a new *concept* here, namely to render things by depending on *two* tag rules. Unfortunately, for mappaint I know that this is currently not possible. So using two rules makes it actually more difficult for renderers! The drawback is that current renderers needs to be changed so they will render these streets at all. But I can change that easily within a short time. Ulfl 23:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, in Norway we have been tagging such streets with highway=pedestrian, abutters=residential, motorcar=yes, motorcycle=yes, maxspeed=8. I think it would be nice to have a proper tag for this, but I see the problem with adding another highway class. I would support something like highway=pedestrian, livingstreet=yes. -Håkon 10:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with previous posters that the most appropriate thing here is highway=pedestrian, motorcar=yes, etc. This ensures a different rendering to highway=residential and (reasonably) accurately represents the difference between these streets and other residential streets without adding additional tags. As the author of a routing system based on OSM data, I'll need to cater for this case (I currently ignore highway=pedestrian for car routes), but that's only one line of code. Sircus 14:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Why is it most appropriate to tag a living_street with highway=pedestrian and then to bend it with additional tags into something that comes close to highway=living_street?!? -- Ulfl 13:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that highway=residential, livingstreet=yes OR preferably the highway=pedestrian, motorcar=yes syntax can cover this. I think there are already enough highway types, so would rather see it 'adjusted' with additional tags. Also, for new users, the concept of highway=living_street might not be intuitive (but that could be because I've never heard of a "living street" before). I think 'residential' and 'pedestrian' on the other hand are more intuitive. -- Bjorn 23:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Once the voting is complete. Please update OSM_tags_for_routing to let people implementing route-finding and navigation -programs know about the change. --MarcusWolschon 18:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Tag it as "highway=pedestrian" "motorcar/motorcycle/...=yes" + "maxspeed=..." so you don't need any new tag-attribute --Cbm 20:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • For me in Germany: "highway=pedestrian" implies "motorcar/motorcycle/...=no" ! => therefor there is a big difference between a living_street and a pedestrian area => pedestrian area in Germany explicitly says no cars allowed. The only exception might be that residentials are allowed to drive in a pedestrian area. BUT: this is specialy indicated by some road signs. --MichaelK 11:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
      • both are "motor-vehicle-peaced" areas (de:verkehrsberuhigter Bereich). So to tag both as "highway=pedestrian" is the logical way, because they have the same base-elements. A real
        "pedestian precinct" (de: Fußgängerzone) is "motorcar=no"
        "living streets" (de: Wohnstraßen) is "motorcar=yes".

Voting

Voting stops: 2008-??-??

  • I approve this proposal. (I don't know if it's ok to vote for your "own proposal", but then you'll have a template). -- Ulfl 13:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Dennis de 14:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. -- sadam 14:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. Florianschmitt 14:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Raschu 15:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. SlowRider 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. -- motp 18:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. -- Polyglot 23:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. -- Shoragan 15:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. -- BroadwayLamb 15:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I disapprove of this proposal. Gravitystorm 15:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I disapprove of this proposal. Sircus 15:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I disapprove of this proposal. -- Bjorn 23:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I disapprove of this proposal. (I prefer a sub-tag like several others proposed) --Cohort 17:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I disapprove of this proposal. highway=pedestrian, motorcar=yes, maxspeed=7/20/... should be enough. --MarcusWolschon 18:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I disapprove of this proposal. highway=pedestrian, motorcar=yes/destination, maxspeed=7/8/... is enough. --Mikemenk 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Geoff 23:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Xylome 10:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I disapprove of this proposal --EdoM (lets talk about it) 11:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I disapprove this proposal. strongly approve a sub tag --Otih 11:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I disapprove of this proposal. (I prefer a sub-tag like several others proposed) --PhilippeP 10:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Onion 12:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I disapprove of this highway= tag (since it's a residential road with taggable extra attributes) -- Ojw 13:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Walley 08:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. Sven Anders 08:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Ckruetze 09:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I disapprove the highway=living_street tag, but strongly approve a sub tag --Andy 10:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. Coldtobi 17:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I disapprove the highway=living_street tag, even tough I was the original proposer ;-) I'm convinced, that highway=residential, living_street=yes would be better --ramack 18:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I disapprove the highway=living_street tag, but would like to approve a sub tag such as living_street=yes -- fuesika 09:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Will.i.am 10:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If (even) the original proposer changed his mind, wouldn't it be appropriate to modify the proposal and do the voting all over again? I know that I voted favorably because I wanted a way to tag these streets. All of a sudden my city seems full of them, now that I know about it... Polyglot 07:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I disapprove this proposal at this moment. Tag it as "highway=pedestrian" "motorcar/motorcycle/...=yes" + maxspeed=..." so you don't need any new tag-attribute --Cbm 20:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --MichaelK 11:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. Akio 15:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. Xylome 10:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. -- Eckhart 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I disapprove this proposal. --Gernot 17:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. -- TigerDuck 01:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal. --Eimai 12:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Voting ended, proposal approved. -- Ulfl 02:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

USA

"United States
Bicycle boulevard
20 mph
Administered at the city level and widely varying in nature. See wikipedia reference for excellent overview.
Bicycle boulevards"

That sounds like the description of Key:bicycle_road, but not like the description of living_street ... Does the USA have real living_streets? --MitteloberrheinischerWaldameisenschreck (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Cars are generally allowed on 'bicycle boulevards' in the US so they do not qualify as 'Key:bicycle_road' which states "Any other vehicles are prohibited unless marked with an addition sign."

I don't asked for US bicycle roads, I asked for US living streets ...
Normally, in the rest of the world and therefore also in OSM, living streets are something totally different than bicycle road, but on this wiki page about living streets, the definition of the US living street sounds like the definition of rest-of-the-world-bicycle-roads ... This might be an error ...
(btw: in europe a lot of bicycle roads are allowed für cars, too, if a 2nd sign says this) --MitteloberrheinischerWaldameisenschreck (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

USA does not have living streets. It does not make sense to change the meaning of living streets. Living streets imply that children and other pedestrians have priority over motor vehicles and bicycles. In the USA, that is not the case. Pedestrians are expected to walk along the side of the road and only cross at intersections. Typically, people in the USA mis-use highway=living_street when the really mean highway=service service=driveway or just highway=residential. This idea of bicycle boulevards being equivalent to living streets is incorrect. There's plenty of other tags to describe Bicycle infrastructure. Living streets have extremely low speed limits (walking speed or values less than 20 kph), but typical speed limits on residential roads in the USA is 20 mph, 25 mph, or 30 mph (32 kph, 40 kph, 48 kph). The general idea with a living street is that children can play with balls in the street and not be in danger of getting hit by a motor vehicle or bicycle. I've reverted the bicycle boulevards addition to this page. --Dobratzp (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I also did wonder about that paragraph on the page. Thanks for cleaning this up. --Westnordost (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC):
"walking speed or values less than 20 kph" - or 20 kph like in Poland Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Include definition used in some developing countries

In some developing countries (e.g. India, Indonesia, Philippines), the tag is used on roads where pedestrians have de facto priority over vehicular traffic or a narrow street that is usually no wider than 1.5–2 metres (4 ft 11 in–6 ft 7 in). Should that information be included as well?. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

While I have seen the tag used here in Indonesia in the way that you mention, I think this is a mistake. The tag highway=living_street is almost as strong as highway=pedestrian and people walking should have clear priority; it's not a road designed for motor vehicles.
But in Indonesia, pedestrians do not have real legal priority on streets, and often people ride motorcycles at high rates of speed even on a 2 meter wide "gang" (alley) here. There are no signs or enforcement that says that it is a pedestrian-priority area. If the government someday passes and enforces laws that actually give pedestrians priority, or the local city puts of signs and street markings, then we can start using this tag. --Jeisenbe (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The same also goes with the Philippines too. I am considering dropping it from the Philippine mapping conventions, but there is consensus that it is used to indicate streets where pedestrians have de facto priority (based on on-the-ground observation). As far as Philippine law is concerned, it's much of the same case: pedestrians have no real legal right of way (priority), but the real question here is including the definition of the tag in developing countries, where on-the-ground conditions rather than legal designation are concerned in the tagging. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
If you were driving a motorcycle at 20km/hr on of these "de facto" streets and ran into a child who suddenly walked across the street, would you be cited by the police for the accident? On an official "living street" you would be guilty, because you were required to give way to pedestrians. --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
If pedestrian right of way is just de facto (due to lax traffic law enforcement), it would be the child's fault, but not if children are really expected to play on the street and I don't slow down.
Getting back to the point, both of us disagree with using the tag if the pedestrian priority is just based on personal observations. Your point is that highway=living_street should not be used in Indonesia, but there haven't there been any discussion the Indonesian mapping community have established a country-specific definition of the tag, being an exception to the usual definition based on legal traffic regulations. If possible, you may better start discussing this in talk-id or some other forum by the Indonesian OSM community (though the former seems to have been inactive as of 2016).--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
You could extend this list to include basically any country in between India and the Phillippines, at least. Though, based on my own experience, these streets only bear similarity to living streets in actual usage because usually they are A) very narrow B) have no additional sidewalk and C) sometimes have stuff standing around at the sides that would otherwise be on the sidewalk. So, in other words, because they are close to not being usable for cars anyway. These properties can already be mapped with appropriate tags - width=X, sidewalk=no and highway=residential or highway=service + service=alley.
I concur with Jeisenbe that the requirement for living streets is that there is a sign or something similar, and that there is a clear legal distinction. Weakening this rule will only lead to issues with verifiability in the future. -- Westnordost (talk)

Difference from highway=pedestrian

The page currently does not explain how a highway=living_street is different from a highway=pedestrian street. There is a suggestion that highway=pedestrian is mainly used for busy areas, not purely residential zones, but I have seen parts of European cities where there are old residential areas with this tag. Is the difference that a living_street allows motor vehicle access at all times, even though pedestrians have priority? But aren't there some highway=pedestrian that allow deliveries and taxis at all hours? --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

For example, consider this example on the current highway=pedestrian page: "highway=pedestrian name=Fiskergade vehicle=yes note="Gågade" "Pedestrian street with "Kørsel tilladt" vehicles allowed. Driving is allowed here, but (tourist)pedestrians are prioritized higher, so motorists basically can't expect to move faster than the pedestrian in front of them." "Similar to highway=living_street, but slightly stricter on vehicles." --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"Driving is allowed here, but (tourist)pedestrians are prioritized higher, so motorists basically can't expect to move faster than the pedestrian in front of them." sounds like living_street to me. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
"aren't there some highway=pedestrian that allow deliveries and taxis at all hours" - cases with exceptions like this are likely to qualify, sometimes exception list is longer. But only as long as traffic remains quite low. But in some places "taxis are always allowed" would be enough to provide full-scale traffic, so it would not qualify as highway=pedestrian. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
"highway=pedestrian is mainly used for busy areas" I think that it is not useful to differentiate. Yes, most highway=pedestrian are in busy city centers, but highway=pedestrian may be also in forest or in a quiet residential area Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
"Is the difference that a living_street allows motor vehicle access at all times, even though pedestrians have priority" - I would say yes, though things like private living_street or living_street with motor vehicle limited to residents also exists. In some places like Poland there are special traffic signs for living_street (though at least in theory adding bunch of additional restrictions may transform such road into highway=pedestrian) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Mapping residential cul-de-sac streets with this tag in USA?

This line was just added: "Mappers in other parts of the US sometimes use this tag for roads with low/no speed limit, paved, and a turning circle/loop at the end."

I believe this is clearly incorrect usage of this tag. A living street, as stated on the main description, must have signage or pain markings which define it as legally different than ordinary residential streets. Generally this means that motor vehicle speeds are limited to walking pace and pedestrians are allowed to walk anywhere. This is not true of residential dead-end streets or cul-de-sac streets in the USA, which are normally mapped as highway=residential.

I suggest reverting this change. I am personally very in favor of converting many residential streets to living streets in the USA, but that requires advocacy resulting in changing the local laws. It cannot be instituted by mis-tagging streets in OpenStreetMap. --Jeisenbe (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Fully agree. The 'living street' tagging addresses an existing legal concept in a number of European countries. Unless there is a similar concept in other countries, the tag should not be used for free interpretation of differently classified roads, or wishful thinking. --Polarbear w (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
How about Children At Play signs? They normally have strict enforcement. --Floridaeditor (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
A warning sign about children at play is not the same as a street with walking-pace speed limits and free use by pedestrians. Usually these are a cautionary or "hazard" sign, unless we are thinking of different things. Is there an example of one of these signs? --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
It actually seems those are not legal, so I was wrong. --Floridaeditor (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Stay-Healthy Streets in Seattle do not appear to be Living Streets

According to the announcement by SDOT, the streets in the Stay-Healthy Streets program have a speed limit of 32 kph (20 mph), much higher than the maximum for a Living Street (20 kmh to "walking speed"). It appears that the legal change is that these streets are now motor_vehicle=destination, with through-traffic prohibited, but they are not Living Streets according to the description in this page or at Wikipedia:

"designed primarily with the interests of pedestrians and cyclists in mind and as a social space where people can meet and where children may also be able to play legally and safely... vehicle parking may be restricted". "These streets are often built at the same grade as sidewalks, without curbs. Cars are limited to a speed that does not disrupt other uses of the streets (usually defined to be pedestrian speed), or through traffic is eliminated using bollards or circuitous one-way operation. To make this lower speed natural, the street is normally set up so that a car cannot drive in a straight line for significant distances, for example by placing planters at the edge of the street, alternating the side of the street the parking is on, or curving the street itself. Other traffic calming measures are also used."

The streets in Seattle have street parking along their whole lengths, and there are no design changes compared to other highway=residential streets in the city, except for signage / paint.

While I would personally love to see real Living Streets in the USA, it doesn't appear that this tag should be used in Seattle (or Portland, where we have implemented similar short-term policies on "Neighborhood Greenways") at this time. If the city redesigns these streets and lowers the speed limit to 5 or 10 mph and legally allows pedestrians to use the whole street at any times, then we can reconsider. --Jeisenbe (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Also here I agree that the tag should not be used for temporary limitation, without a clear legal concept. Maybe the temporary conditions can be mapped with the :conditional key suffix. I'd mark both invalid uses of the tag as incorrect in the respective heading. --Polarbear w (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Theoretically, it may be temporary:motor_vehicle=destination @ ("text comment following opening_hours=* syntax, to describe the indefinitely long effective time period"). In current usage, motor_vehicle:covid19=destination could be considered. -- Kovposch (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree (based on facts that you mentioned) but I think that full street redesign is not necessary to mark as a living street. As long as pedestrians have priority over vehicles (cars must yield to pedestrian at any place on the road) and pedestrian may walk on street at any place (not just sidewalks and crossing) then it would be living_street. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)