<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">I take exception to the comment that “there will be too many exceptions to the rule”.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div>In the country I live in each state has a set of “prima facia” speed limits for various types of roads. Those are basically default speed limits to be enforced unless otherwise posted by sign. Virtually no residential road in my state has a speed limit sign but if you exceed 25 MPH you can be ticketed for speeding. Rural highways are signed only at infrequent intervals, but exceeding 55 MPH can result in a ticket.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Given:</div><div class="">A) We should only tag what is on the ground verifiable. By that rule we should not currently tag these “prima facia” speed limits (no speed limit sign to verify a maxspeed tag value).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">B) A routing app currently has no way to determine a default speed (one to be used if no maxspeed=* tag found on way). These can vary by jurisdiction and I can imagine situations where a national default is overridden by a state default and/or local municipality default. Should all routing apps go to a different geographical database to get defaults? If so, why not go to that other database for everything and ignore OSM?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It make perfect sense to me to allow administrative areas to be tagged with default values for otherwise untagged items within the jurisdiction. If something deviates from the default, as in your “speed limits varies depending on local topography”, then it will be signed and we should tag per the sign. But many, many roads in my area are not signed and yet have legally set maximum speeds.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">At present, I usually ignore the local verifiability constraint and simply put a maxspeed value on residential roads after I’ve surveyed them even if they are not signed. If I am feeling a bit more energetic than usual I may also add a source:maxspeed with a value citing my state’s motor vehicle code. It would be a lot easier if I could rely on a default value set on my state’s administrative boundary.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 1, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Dave F <<a href="mailto:davefoxfac63@btinternet.com" class="">davefoxfac63@btinternet.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="">
Hi André<br class="">
<br class="">
Assuming or defining a default should be based on the number of
different values within the set. <br class="">
<br class="">
For the examples you give:<br class="">
<br class="">
maxspeed shouldn't have a default. Apart from on motorway classed
roads, speed limits varies depending on local topography. There will
be too many exceptions to the rule.<br class="">
<br class="">
driving_side is defined nationally so has a default. (I'm sure now
someone will now provide examples where that's not the case). Any
router worth its salt, should be able to check which country it is
in.<br class="">
<br class="">
DaveF <br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 31/08/2017 12:49, André Pirard
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:59A7F7BA.5040802@gmail.com" type="cite" class="">
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type" class="">
Hi,<br class="">
<br class="">
Examples: either each road is tagged with <tt style="background:#EEF" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed" class=""><bdi style="white-space:nowrap" class=""><strong class="selflink">maxspeed</strong></bdi>=*</a>
</tt>speed limit and <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:driving_side" class=""><tt style="background:#EEF" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><bdi style="white-space:nowrap" class=""><strong class="selflink">driving_side</strong></bdi>=*</tt></a>
or there are defaults.<br class="">
I'm reviving this remark because the examples are numerous:<br class="">
<ul class="">
<li class="">The Belgian Flemish community wants to tag <tt style="background:#EEF" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed" class=""><bdi style="white-space:nowrap" class=""><strong class="selflink">maxspeed</strong></bdi>=*</a></tt>
on every road instead of using a default. Is this a new
specification and where is it written? Must that now be done
in every country?</li>
<li class="">The current language= proposition wants to do it without
defining defaults. Really? language= on every name= ?</li>
<li class="">Other examples are maxheight in tunnels. Osmose just accused
me of someone else's omitting maxheight. It shouldn't be
necessary if it's the default, that is if there is no sign for
it, but Osmose likes to yell just in case.<br class="">
</li>
<li class="">countless etc.<span class="mw-content-ltr" style="background:#EEF"><br class="">
</span></li>
</ul>
Please choose.<br class="">
<br class="">
Either the defaults are in the OSM database and it takes just a
routinely map fetch to get them all updated timely,<br class="">
or each other router (GPS) writer implements them each their own
way from various random other files. It's not well clear how
contributors ca update all those files instead of OSM and it
typically needs a full software update for each little default
change, depending on writer's availability.<br class="">
<br class="">
Please choose.<br class="">
<br class="">
There is a <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Defaults" class="">Proposed_features/Defaults</a>
that puts the defaults in OSM and it's an EXTREMELY HUGE mistake
to have marked such a paramount good work as abandoned because
nobody continued the work. For the sake of OSM, especially
routing, please reopen it.<br class="">
I don't claim that it is the good solution but I do claim we
should work on such a default database <b class="">in priority</b>.<br class="">
<br class="">
I didn't analyze it in full depth, but I have the following
remarks:<br class="">
- Why not allow the def keyword in the border relation itself? But
it could be called zzdef to cluster at the key end.<br class="">
- If a separate relation is preferred, it should be pointed at by
a "defaults" role in the corresponding border or other relations
so that it can be found.<br class="">
- to ease scanning a border tree upwards, a "parent" relation
should exist in border relations.<br class="">
<br class="">
In hope of a well structured OSM,<br class="">
<br class="">
Cheers <br class="">
<br class="">
<table class="">
<tbody class="">
<tr class="">
<td class="">André.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br class="">
<pre wrap="" class="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br class="">
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">Tagging mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" class="">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br class="">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></body></html>