[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Car access tag

M∡rtin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri May 6 15:01:49 BST 2011

2011/5/6 Stefan Bethke <stb at lassitu.de>:
> Am 06.05.2011 um 12:29 schrieb Nathan Edgars II:
>> Isn't motor_vehicle used for this? In my experience, the English term 'motor vehicle' does not include sub-motorcycle vehicles, such as motorized bicycles. For example, Florida statutes define...

+1, this is the status in all countries I know of. The current
definition (in the wiki) is pointless for tagging legal restrictions.
An RC-Car (small toy, for bigger ones things may change) will not be
part of "motor_vehicle" in all "usual" jurisdictions.

>> MOTOR VEHICLE.—Any self-propelled vehicle not operated upon rails or guideway, but not including any bicycle, motorized scooter, electric personal assistive mobility device, or moped.

+1, that's how I would define it as well (according to the German or
Italian law). There might still be smaller national differences, e.g.
where the limit is (some countries might have 50ccm, other 80 or 125
ccm), which could then be documented in the wiki as country specific
(implicit) limits.

>> I guess the one difference between this and his change to motorcar is that the latter doesn't include motorcycles. But in the rare case that these are treated differently, one could use motor_vehicle=yes motorcycle=no.

I am not completely against motor_car as class, but I'd use
motor_vehicle as the usual case (with goods, hgv, busses, etc.
included) and motor_car as class for actual cars.

> I'm happy to clarify the meaning of motorcar and motor_vehicle either way, but redefining the meaning of tags that have been used extensively and are "defined" (rather broadly) on the map features pages might be confusing to mappers.

Well, motor_car for instance is described on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motorcar as "Access permission
for cars." which is perfectly fine.


More information about the Tagging mailing list