[Tagging] Reviving the conditions debate

[Colin Smale]

On 14/06/2012 12:53, Flaimo wrote:
> this notation has the same flaw as the current access scheme. it mixes 
> transportation modes and user roles. "motor_vehicle" is a 
> transportation mode. "agricultural" is a user role. not everywhere on 
> this planet "agricultural" automatically means "motor_vehicle". that 
> is what the 1.5 proposal tries to solve.

I would say that according to current usage motor_vehicle is a class of 
vehicles. The tagging is intended to represent restrictions enacted by 
laws and indicated by signs. A large proportion of the countries in the 
world adhere more-or-less to the UN (ECE?) standards for road signs, 
which is why the sign for "no motor vehicles" is so ubiquitous. There 
are minor variations in the exact definition of "motor vehicle" for 
these purposes (does it include mopeds? mowing machines?) but within a 
"traffic law jurisdiction" its definition will be consistent. There have 
been many debates on whether or not to document OSM "defaults" or 
"assumptions" for each jurisdiction. I don't expect there to be total 
agreement about "agricultural" either. There are signs for "no 
agricultural vehicles", which in my experience refer to the type of 
vehicle and not what it is being used for at that moment. But this again 
may vary per jurisdiction. If a farmer uses his combine harvester to go 
to the shop for some sugar, is that "agricultural"?

Colin