[Tagging] access restrictions on ways

[André Pirard]

On 2012-09-17 16:05,  Richard Mann wrote :
> It looks like it's just inside the village (commune?) boundary. Maybe 
> they mean the whole village?
No, that would stop commerce on the very much important N633 through Esneux.
Behind the scene if you want to know, understand the word hush, is that 
madame la bourgmestre developed a special dislike of trafic coming from 
here 
<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.53602&mlon=5.63291&zoom=16&layers=M>. 
The sole goal of the road sign is to force her neigbour commune to 
divert that traffic down to N633 through the route de Méry, which is 
much narrower, winding and bordered with ravines. That cost more that 
her sign: changing direction signs, placing retention rails plus the 
vehicles testing them.

But, beside the political issue having little place here, is my phrase 
"what does that highway code tell us about C23 after all?", starting the 
OSM issue.  According to that code, C23 is a node sign.

On 2012-09-17 16:40,  Martin Vonwald wrote :
> If I understood André correct, there is only one sign.  So there is no 
> "area within" unless you want to add the whole world ;-)
Correct, single sign, and madame la bourgmestre herself cannot describe 
the area (but she might have a plan to rule the world ;-)).

On 2012-09-17 16:25,  Eckhart Wörner wrote :
> Am Montag, 17. September 2012, 16:04:19 schrieb Martin Vonwald:
>>   My two cents: we should allow such kind of restriction to be placed on a
>> node, because that's the way they work. They are just some kind of "legal
>> barrier" and barriers on a road we (usually) map as a node.
> that wouldn't solve the problem; vehicles are forbidden to pass the legal barrier coming from both sides.
> Technically, it would be more of a turn restriction.
> In any case, the extended conditions/conditional access debate has to be solved first, because otherwise the combination of signs is a problem in itself.
In this C23 case, heavy vehicles are forbidden to go to Esneux, not to 
leave it.
That would be extra fun; you have understood that, politically, the 
restriction is *before* the sign.
One way restriction.
And, to me, a node restriction.  No relations, please, no thanks.
The relation with the extended cond* prompted me to hasten my posting.

André.


>
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 2:55 PM, André Pirard <A_Pirard at hotmail.com 
> <mailto:A_Pirard at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Summary: setting access restrictions on ways sometimes (often?)
>     inappropriate
>     Full story and conclusions: ...
>
>     At 50.5308 5.5959
>     <http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.5309716&mlon=5.5954177&zoom=19>,
>     there's a C23 road sign (below) towards NW town Esneux.
>     As understood with common sense, they don't want heavy vehicles
>     inside Esneux and cartographers will use
>     <http://www.ign.be/Common/leg10/10000FR.htm> a distinctive
>     rendering (road with traffic restriction
>     <http://www.ign.be/Common/leg10/images/leg1n_10.gif>) over the
>     restricted ways <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight>.
>     Which means I have to look for other corresponding road signs to
>     determine the span.
>     I found none, starting with none on the next left Rue de la
>     Cissure (rdlC).
>     I asked Esneux' administration in vain.
>     That means that a heavy lorry can come through Esneux, drive
>     through rdlC up to the village Fontin and then U turn and go all
>     the way back as if it had passed the C23 sign.  How can cops book
>     anyone unless they come and sit near the sign? ;-)
>
>     So, I defined the weight restriction from the sign up to rdlC,
>     over 50m. That's incorrect because it's not one-way but it's the
>     best I could do to reconcile OSM and ADM.
>     Sounds kinda stupid but I plead not guilty.
>
>     But now what does that highway code tell us about C23 after all?
>     "accès interdit" = "forbidden access": to where?  To behind the
>     sign, of course.
>     Unlike C43 speed limit below which is bound to say "up to the next
>     crossing" to tell you where you can speed up again, there is no
>     point in saying what happens behind C23 sign if the driver cannot
>     go there, is there?
>
>     But now how can we make a map of such a case if OSM instructions
>     <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight>  make the
>     weight limit a way attribute and JOSM scolds with : /Wrong highway
>     tag on a node.  Suspicious tag/value combinations/?  Is that
>     Esneux adm playing tricks on OSM? ;-)
>
>     André.
>
>
>
>     	*C23. **Accès interdit*
>     <http://www.code-de-la-route.be/textes-legaux/sections/ar/code-de-la-route/251-art68>
>     aux conducteurs de véhicules affectés au transport de choses.
>     Une inscription sur un panneau additionnel limite l'interdiction
>     aux conducteurs de véhicules dont la masse en charge dépasse la
>     masse indiquée.
>     7,5t
>
>     	
>     	    C43. *A partir du signal jusqu'au prochain carrefour*,
>     interdiction de circuler à une vitesse supérieure à celle qui est
>     indiquée.
>     - La mention “km” sur le signal est facultative.
>     - Lorsqu'une masse est indiquée sur un panneau additionnel,
>     l'interdiction n'est applicable qu'aux véhicules dont la masse
>     maximale autorisée excède la limite fixée.
>     Le signal C43, avec la mention 30 km/h, placé au-dessus du signal
>     F1 vaut sur l'ensemble des voiries comprises dans les limites de
>     l'agglomération.
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20120917/3c2930e0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1989 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20120917/3c2930e0/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 3500 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20120917/3c2930e0/attachment-0003.png>