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


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 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. 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)


"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)
@Westnordost: I completely agree with that. It reminds me of the use of highway=track for any unpaved minor road. There seems to be mapping for the renderer issues in that tag choice. Even worse, such may have just been adopted without discussion, usually carrying on from the mistakes of other mappers. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

I am in favor of keeping Seattle's "Healthy Streets" tagged as living streets. For background, I live one block from one and have experienced much lower motor vehicle traffic volumes and higher pedestrian and bicycle volumes along them since they were implemented. The Healthy Streets program is now a permanent street designation in Seattle. Additionally the Seattle DOT is placing more prominent (and permanent) signage and traffic-calming devices at the beginnings and ends of these streets. Furthermore, pedestrians are allowed to walk in the right-of-way (which is not true of other residential streets in Seattle) and motor vehicles are required to yield to both pedestrians and bicycles. Finally, residents may erect movable barricades on Healthy Streets at any time (there are a few other restrictions though) without a permit to allow for a "Play Street" since the streets are closed to through motor vehicle traffic. Some previous Healthy Streets are being downgraded to "Neighborhood Greenway" designations which do not have different legal restrictions than residential streets, featuring only additional traffic-calming and wayfinding treatments. I believe it is appropriate to retag these downgraded streets as residential. --VigilantPenguin (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I also think the Seattle Healthy Streets guidelines fit the spirit of living_street. With any feature tag that is actually a collection of stuff (motor_vehicle=destination, pedestrian legal preference to roadway, speed limiting) some of the properties are inherently more essential to the thing than others. The property that is already allowed to vary (speed_limit) is the only thing separating folks on whether these count or not. So we're arguing about a matter of degrees and my preference in that situation is to be more inclusive. --Watmildon (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
20kph, one of the requirements of a living street, is significantly slower than 20mph. That alone seems to put Seattle's Healthy Streets out of contention for being classified as a living_street. I would rather see US cities step up and actually create living streets. By us marking them as living streets just degrades the principles behind the standard. The 20mph speed limit does nothing to limit walking since it's common in many residential area. If we start tagging every street with a 20mph speed limit, cities will say - look we don't have to do anything - they are already there. Glassman (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Even the linked Wikipedia article has a table that includes streets up to 30kph which is 18.6mph so I don't feel like focusing on speed limit should be limiting here. The usefulness of the map is how people can and do use things. If local use it like a living_street (folks who live near they say they do, I don't live super near there) and it's legally similar (seems to be), we should tag it as such. --Watmildon (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Blanking infobox

@Gileri: - please, do not blank infoboxes to replace them by display of data items. There is no agreement/consensus to do this, at least in the main English OSM Wiki pages. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: Can you point me to the agreement/consensus to not use or deprecate Data Items ? Thank you --Gileri (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Note that lack of consensus for blanking infoboxes does not mean that data items are deprecated or that editing them is not allowed! Feel free to edit and improve data items, maybe it is even used on wiki in some translations (not sure which, if any). Nevertheless there is no agreement that would allow to start blanking infoboxes. See for discussion on this topic (@Gileri:) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me to this discussion. To be honest I skimmed it, but what I saw was a divide between the two opinions. The conclusion I came to is that I, you, and every OSM editors don't have the time nor language knowledge to bring every localized wiki page to a similar level of completeness and quality. So using something like Data Item is the way to go, as long as using it doesn't substract to the data currently presented. My edits did not do that, even if you call that "blanking".
Each time I can I will use them and bring in-line the data I edit on French and English pages. Contributor time is a precious resource, and seeing the state of certain wiki pages, I think we should strive to make the best of it.
To be precise, I will not do a crusade against unparsable, balkanized data on wiki pages. But I will not waste my time copy-pasting changes in wiki pages because some don't want to use Data Items.
Definitely, you are free to maintain just data items without maintaining infoboxes Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
That's not what I said. I will use Data Items in wiki pages when I spot errors/incompleteness. If you want to stop my edits, simply to fix those errors on wiki pages, across every languages before I spot them :) --Gileri (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Mateusz, stop being a bully. I would have more respect for you if you apologise for harassing Yuri. --Andrew (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Note that "blanking" refers to removal of text from wiki page, not to what is rendered Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

How can a tag imply a key?

[1] How can a tag imply a key? It's illogical that a tag implies a key. It can imply only a tag. Following this line of reasoning, we should set that highway=motorway implies surface=*...

Maybe replace it with maxspeed=20? Are there any countries with different maxspeed for living streets? maro21 19:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

As you answered yourself, maxspeed=20 is common, but not everywhere. There is a maxspeed implied by using this tag, but it's country-specifc. That's why the tables in highway=living_street are highway=living_street are here. In both forms (Data Item and unparsable plaintext) the reader will have to use those tables as reference. --Gileri (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Regarding "Following this line of reasoning, we should set that highway=motorway implies surface=*", yes we should do that as well for countries that specify the material that has to be used for a road to be a motorway. --Gileri (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Where data items have table with per-country speed limit typical for living street? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
They don't. Not sure what you are trying to say. --Gileri (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
It was triggerred by "In both forms the reader must refer to the tables in the maxspeed or highway=living_street to know what the value is. So using a parsable Data Item instead of unparsable plaintext is better" Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
To put it another way : There is no way to fit the table in the infobox. So using Data Item or not for the infobox don't change anything, the viewer will need to see elsewhere to obtain the value. So I don't see where that does bring us. --Gileri (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
That is because highway=living_street implies maxspeed but value depends on a country, see table on Wikipedia. It can be expressed on OSM Wiki by "{{tag|maxspeed||<value depending on region>}}" giving maxspeed=<value depending on region> Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Conflict about "info boxes"

It looks like a beginning edit war on this page, and I honestly have no idea what this is about. The effect on the user visible version of the page is just the presence or absence of the (IMHO helpful) comment "according to local law" next to the hint about the implied maxspeed tag. So if @Gileri: could tell us what problem exactly he sees with this comment and why he thinks removing the lines is the best way to fix this problem, and @Mateusz Konieczny: could tell us why he thinks this comment needs to be exactly in this place and not maybe in the normal page text, I would be grateful. --Lyx (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you can see my comments on the two sectioned opened here by User:Mateusz Konieczny : 1 and 2. To keep it short using Data Items facilitate maintenance across languages.
I did read these sections already but they didn't help me to find out what the actual problem is. I do know that "data items" exist in this wiki and that there are some automatic interactions between "Wiki pages" and "Data Items", but I do not know what exactly these interactions are and how changes in Wiki pages result in changes to data items and vice versa. And I suspect that the large majority of wiki users doesn't know this either.
So to rephrase my original question: Does the presence of the lines you removed cause any damage to data items? And for the other part of the question: Given that there is already a huge table of country specifics in the page, does it really do any harm if we don't have this comment in the infobox? --Lyx (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
"Does the presence of the lines you removed cause any damage to data items?" Indirectly yes, by using hardly parsable text. But the main point is that using directly Data Items allows to have the same content in all languages, and keeping it up-to-date over time. Having complete, up-to-date info seems paramount for the wiki.
"Given that there is already a huge table of country specifics in the page, does it really do any harm if we don't have this comment in the infobox?" : Either with the comment or without the user must access the page to see what value is implied. --Gileri (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
"Does the presence of the lines you removed cause any damage to data items?" no, data item at is not influenced at all by what is present in OSM Wiki. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I object in general to removal parameters and rendering infobox using data items (see for wider discussion on that topic) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
"could tell us why he thinks this comment needs to be exactly in this place and not maybe in the normal page text" - I think that it is useful part of summary. I could be convinced by arguments such as "too much detail", but "data items are not capable of displaying this and I want to blank that parameter" is not a good argument Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
You are resorting to purposely misrepresenting my position.
Do you understand that by removing Data Items here, you are creating drift between different languages articles, and increasing the maintenance burden on editors ? Do you understand that you are asking editors to update 10+ pages each time, instead of 1 ? --Gileri (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm still waiting on your answer User talk:Mateusz Konieczny. --Gileri (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I am not removing data items. Data items can continue to contain whatever they want. In this case ([2]) I never edited this data item and I have no editing rights to delete data items anyway. In rare cases I remove bogus data from data items, especially where it damages OSM Wiki infoboxes. (unless you mean that I added parameters so potentially bogus things in data items will not influence OSM Wiki?) One of blocking problems with data items is completely dysfunctional watchlisting, as result modifying 20 pages is easier to handle than dealing with data items. If you watchlist data item you get notifications about any translation in any language (including ones incomprehensible to you), making watchlist utterly useless. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
"increasing the maintenance burden on editors" in my opinion overall data items are increasing maintenance burden (weird interface, dysfunctional watchlist, splitting content across OSM Wiki and data items, pointlessly confusing ids, data items influencing language pages while "data item" entry on sidebar is present only in English, edits lacking edit description which is tricky like in cases of disputed edits - like ones happening right now on data item linked to highway=living_street page). Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
There was never any discussion that would conclude that infoboxes in English should be blanked and replaced by data items (there were some discussions like this one that were at best inconclusive), discussion whether data items should be enabled explicitly mentioned that existing system will NOT be replaced by it (I need to stop falling for that promise) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

As there still was a developing edit war, I have now locked the page and the data item against editing until further notice. As I see, this edit conflict is not really based on conflicting views about this particular page but on the usage of data items on tag pages in general.
I just browsed the discussion on the page that Mateusz linked to. On the one hand I see it as very important to keep tag definitions consistent across language versions, rendering details from data items can be very helpful here. On the other hand I agree that information appearing "magically" from data items without being visible in the wiki source can be confusing, and working with data items can be painful for those not used to it. What I am missing in the discussion on that page is a willingness to find ways to "reduce the pain" on the other side. Please remember, this is a community project, and to bring it forward requires the ability and will to compromise, to find solutions together that have good results with minimal pain.
Please work on a solution, and as soon as you have found one that you can generally agree on, come back to any admin to unlock the page and data item. --Lyx (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The conflict stems to a simple issue, which have only two approaches : either use Data Items, or don't. I think that's why you don't see compromises, or "ways to "reduce the pain" proposed, because the issue has already been reduced to a single datum. The only way to get out of this would be that one party abandon the issue. However, Mateusz Konieczny asks editors to do an massive amount of work trying to keep every language variant of a tag up-to-date. I think we should keep in mind the limited time (and patience) of OSM editors/contributors, and using a wonderful tool like Data Items for that seems really aligned with that goal. I don't see any equivalent solution to Data Item usage from Mateusz Konieczny. So the question becomes : "Because centralized data sources like Data Items are not always used, we see drift between languages as the editors don't have the resources to keep them in-sync. Do we want an up-to-date documentation in every language, or do we accept that presumably only the english version should be read ?". --Gileri (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Can you post your comments on Talk:Wiki in linked section? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I have now added a section to the bottom of Please use that page to discuss. --Lyx (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lyx: Would it be OK to reopen this page for editing? For example noone replied to my "Actually, for keeping translation in synch data items are worse than OSM Wiki pages. There is no effective way to notice that something is changed (as watchlisting data items fills watchlist with translation updates in all languages, including ones where you cannot review changes)." since May 2021. It seems clear to me that there is no consensus to use data items, and also I am dubious is data items overall beneficial (I am not claiming to be the correct one here). Disclaimer: I would still consider reverting as beneficial. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I have re-opened the page and the associated data item for edits for now, hoping not to see edit wars again. --Lyx (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Lyx. As you can see, that is not the case, as User:Maro21 jumped right in to continue the edit war. Should it be locked again ? --Gileri (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Living streets - they do exist in the USA

I have updated the page to reflect the fact that the United States does have streets that meet the criteria outlined here for a living street. Since it seems like this has been brought up a few times and been surprisingly limited in scope, I will list a few examples here. I intend to elaborate on the wiki page itself once I have thought this through some more. I am basing these off of the understanding that a living street is a street on which pedestrians can walk in the street with priority over vehicles - different from pedestrian streets in that limited, low speed vehicle access is allowed, and different from track roads in that they are typically paved residential streets. The discussions so far have focused on incorrectly identified "living streets" that in reality still give priority to cars, but these are ones that are more clear in their prioritization of pedestrians.

  • Streets which have become living streets as an alternative to becoming defunct/disused. An example of this I have seen myself locally is Grantley Avenue in Baltimore, which is adjacent to a Metro station at the end of an unclassified road, East Wabash Avenue, which originally provided vehicular access to an industrial building in the neighborhood. That industrial building was disused and has now been demolished, and given that there is no longer a reason for people to drive down East Wabash Avenue it has been closed off from Grantley Avenue with a barrier. Grantley Avenue was painted over and given a 'living street' re-treatment through the combined work of residents, community organizations, and the city, in part with the intent of making the neighborhood more accessible to the Metro station. Residents still drive into and park on the street from the other side, but the treatment does seem to have been enough to make Grantley Avenue living in the way it was intended. The first thing I saw when I walked down it recently was several children playing in the street, which is a benchmark test I have seen people bring up.
  • Streets which were built as pedestrian streets which now allow limited vehicle access. Washington Mews in New York City, for example, is an older street with "mews style" housing along it which was initially intended for use primarily by pedestrians (and horses). As it exists today, vehicles can drive along it, but the entrance is gated in a way that makes accessing it by vehicle impractical for people who don't live on the street, and people walk freely both in the street and on the sidewalk.
  • Streets which were built to serve college campuses. A number of larger college campuses have named, paved streets which are accessible by vehicle, but may be limited to campus transportation, and typically do not allow high speeds. A number of the smaller streets on these college campuses might be better described as highway=service and living_street=yes, as they are stretches on which a pedestrian path might give way to a "shared" road functions both as a driveway for the occasional service vehicle and a walkway for students.
  • Streets which run through communities where motor vehicles make up a very small portion of the transportation mode share. This is particularly common in towns which are isolated from a larger road network but which still have some kind of paved street grid which is shared by low-speed service vehicles and pedestrians. This can be seen on the communities of Smith Island, Maryland, for example, where most residents do not drive, and most vehicle trips that are made are by golf cart rather than by car. Other examples of this could be found in some of Alaska's smaller villages - the predominant transportation mode in the state's north/central boroughs is walking, and the paved residential streets which exist in some communities are primarily used by pedestrians and shared with a varied range of vehicles which tend to serve specific purposes. (Snowmobiles, taxis, and motorcycles may be more common than personal cars in some cases.) --Bgo eiu (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand your description yet. Priority here means "yield" to pedestrians by law, the same traffic priority on crosswalks. It doesn't mean whether pedestrian is the dominant mode, or can walk on streets freely. Your example seems like highway=pedestrian + motor_vehicle=*. Just because I can walk or even play as I like on a driveway or quiet street, doesn't mean it is a highway=living_street / living_street=yes. In general, highway=pedestrian can be used more flexibly, and is more widely applicable. --- Kovposch (talk) 08:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Legally, drivers are required to yield to pedestrians even mid-block in Baltimore, where many pedestrians cross, so that is not a practical standard to apply here. There are also a number of actual pedestrian streets where vehicles are not permitted at all, or on which they cannot physically enter. I am not talking about random driveways here, I am talking about streets which have received some form of physical treatment which make the 'living street' tagging possible. There are in fact even a number of streets where it is accepted de facto to stand in the middle of that I would not tag as such because it's an intangible phenomenon and it doesn't speak to the safety of using streets this way - but for cases where barriers have been put in place, signage, road markings etc., it seems appropriate. Based on your description, I could tag large portions of the vehicular road network in Maryland as pedestrian streets which allow motor vehicles even though this is clearly not what they are.
I also cannot imagine a case where pedestrians are the predominant mode on a street and they aren't also legally prioritized. --Bgo eiu (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Another note - I agree with User:Mateusz Konieczny here, who is from Poland if it helps to know: . I did not get into much detail about the debates about pedestrian street vs. living street & the regional differences in legal priority because I saw it had already been discussed. I think it is fair to say it makes sense in some regions to go by legal standards in some regions and not in others, the purpose of mapping these is that the tagging shouldn't come as a surprise to people familiar with the area. --Bgo eiu (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
The "required" one would be a default that we shouldn't add. And if If I'm reading correctly, that only applies to crossing pedestrians, not someone hanging around on the roadway? Sorry maybe I explained it too fragmentedly. highway=living_street needs a specific legal traffic status with special rules.
Physical modifications, you add traffic_calming=* and other attributes as usual.
That comment's "prioritized" means an extra priority than usual. The "Gågade" example is signposted as a special zone.
--- Kovposch (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
It can be hard to imagine for people not familiar with this part of the United States, but people do often stand in roadways in the middle of moving traffic in Baltimore (not crossing). It is not legal to hit them. The example I gave in Baltimore is designated as a special zone for what it is worth, but I would say that tags should be interpreted with respect to the region/community they are being used in, and the legal framework around street traffic prioritization is not something that can really be used to distinguish streets effectively here. There is also no traffic enforcement authority here; the police do not consider it to be part of their job, and the department of transportation does not have the resources for it, so these laws are less 'real' of a verifiable, mappable feature than the way the street functions in practice from my point of view. Signage and even signals may not even match with the legal requirements on paper.--Bgo eiu (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
"It is not legal to hit them." - is it legal for them to stand in the middle of the road? If no, it is not a living street. If it is often happening then it is a case of dysfunctional police and breakdown of traffic law enforcement. Similar case exists in some places where actual parking lanes differ from legally available parking lanes. Or speed limits which are not enforced. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, I am saying a street where people happen to stand in the street is *not* what I would call a living street. It is a grey area legally because of loitering laws which can be used to arrest anybody for standing in a public space for an extended period of time (see The police have arrested people who were waiting at bus stops on the sidewalk before. There is no traffic enforcement and the police could be described as actively disruptive more than just dysfunctional. It is common to see police cars parked on crosswalks, sidewalks, etc. That is just what a lot of America is like, this is why I do not think leaning to heavily on legalistic concepts makes sense for local mapping. --Bgo eiu (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Note that highway=living_street is describing legal status, not actual use. For example in Poland in many places signed as "living street" pedestrians use solely sidewalks and someone walking on a carriageway is treated as dangerous lunatic, sometimes also by possible Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
The legal status of a street and ground truth may be more closely related in some places, but per the guidelines around verifiability and ground truth, I do not think it makes sense to defer exclusively to legislation, especially when there is a clearly verifiable reality and there is nothing on the ground tied to a specific law (even signage posted by the government does not constitute a law, and even if it did, the fact that a law exists does not have much to do with whether or not it is ever enforced). I think this from the good practices page explains it well - only map legislation where it is tied to the reality on the ground: Good_practice#Don.27t_map_local_legislation_if_not_bound_to_specific_objects --Bgo eiu (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

living streets in canada

i think that the section added about living streets in canada is misleading, at least from my experiences in québec and ontario, where they are absolutely rare but do not seem uncommon. I don't feel comfortable editing this part of the article because i don't know enough about the regulation and context behind these places, other than they seemed like places where peds go wherever they want, and autos yield to them and drive slowly. i am fairly confident that severla places could be tagged as living streets without raising disagreement, but since a part of it is regulatory and i am not a motorist and thus do not pay attention to most traffic laws, i dont know how much of the legal requirement for the tag is met. i agree with the sentiment generally that they are rare and it's easy to mistake very low speed residential streets, but do not think the way it's framed is helpful in regard to focusing on banff as exceptional, since it discourages tagging any in canada even if that is the best fitting tag. Do not bring quebec into this (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)