[Tagging] access in the wiki
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Dec 3 12:28:20 UTC 2014
2014-12-03 12:35 GMT+01:00 althio forum <althio.forum at gmail.com>:
> Long post to follow so this is a short version.
> (1) proposing tagging for zone like ZTL:
there is actually a proposal for this kind of zone, to be mapped as a
polygon, useful e.g. for rendering (with name, ref, etc.), but probably not
very transparent to inherit access-tags to ways from this. I had linked
this also in the first message:
I wouldn't prefix this with IT because this is not something that gets
specified or enabled on a national level.
> (2) proposing access=authorised
this won't work (we should have vehicle specific tags, not general ones),
and "authorized" as a value seems the same than "private".
> (3) I don't like acronyms
So possible tag for a ZTL in Italy could be:
> highway=IT:limited_traffic_zone (scheme similar to highway=living_street)
> highway=residential/pedestrian + zone:traffic=IT:limited_traffic_zone
> (scheme similar to zone:maxspeed=FR:30 or zone:traffic=DE:urban)
you won't gain anything with this tagging, because every ZTL has its own
restrictions, times, exceptions, etc.
> A few interesting excerpts IMO:
> > This proposal [trafficzone] wants to install a tagging-scheme for
> implicit traffic-laws [...]
> > A traffic zone often bundles a lot of restrictions: not only maxspeeds
> for various vehicle types, but additional regulations depending on local
> > Mapping reality proves that mappers don't add all those tags, they might
> not even know about all those restrictions. But they are able to identify
> traffic zones.
helpful for German living streets for instance, OK (albeit the mapping has
developed towards tagging each street, not "zones"). The difference is that
these do have nationwide the same rules and conditions, unlike ZTLs.
> Would another generic value like access=authorised allow a useful
> distinction from access=private?
no, its the same
Furthermore this [military vehicles]=yes/no" is quite close to
> emergency=yes and might be considered as subclass of public_utility or
we might consider it a subclass of public_utility (I guess typically it
would not be seen as such, but as a class on its own), but it surely isn't
a subclass of "emergency" (IMHO)
> reference: Emergency_service on wikipedia.org 
> > Other emergency services
> > Military — to provide specialist services, such as bomb disposal or to
> supplement emergency services at times of major disaster, civil dispute or
> high demand.
yes, but this is a tiny subclass of all military vehicles / services.
> > - NCC (noleggio con conducente, car hire with driver)
> > previous proposals: "private_hire" / "car_hire_with_driver"
> Some others ideas to consider:
> - "vehicle_hire_with_driver",
> - "private_driver",
> - "driver_hire",
> - "driver_service",
> (also replace "_driver_" by "_chauffeur_"),
no, I'd clearly go for "private_hire" (or maybe "minicab") as these are
apparently standard terms, while the other terms you are suggesting as
alternatives seem at best misleading or describing something different
> - "ridesharing",
> - "ridesharing_service".
-> different stuff
This could be another topic but still in "access": I don't like
> acronyms so I would put into question:
- psv > public_service or public_transport
- hov > carpool
> - hgv > heavy_goods
yes, it is a different topic, and while I would support this move, I think
we should spell these out and not reduce the information, so psv should
become "public_service_vehicle", "hov" -> "heavy_occupancy_vehicle" (this
is not about carpooling but about the number of people in the car), hgv ->
> Other nitpicks:
> Taxi are "PSV" under english regulations, but is this the case in all
> other countries?
it is the case in OSM, so if psv is yes, but taxis are no, you would have
to tag both, while in the other case you could use psv=yes and taxi=yes
would not be needed (implied)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging