[Tagging] new access value

Colin Smale colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Thu Oct 8 10:42:19 UTC 2015


 

Good story! 

Another aspect that is technically very similar: variations for HGVs
(trucks). They have to worry about
maxheight/maxwidth/maxweight/maxaxleload as well as a different maxspeed
(compared to light vehicle like cars), and these values can vary each
journey (in some circumstances). So to make proper routing decisions for
these vehicles, you also need to find out a lot of parameters for "this
particular journey". 

Buses/coaches/taxis have similar problems. 

It seems that some countries issue permits to do specific things on the
road. As these permits can be issued for just about anything, there is
probably no point in tagging for permit holders, as this would be like
emergency services which can do absolutely anything they like (in NL
they have a blanket waiver from all road traffic laws). We are not going
to put "police=yes" on every road because basically there is no such
thing as "police=no". A road near me is one-way, signed "except for
permit holders" at the no-entry end, but not at the normal entry
point... 

//colin 

On 2015-10-08 12:16, Lauri Kytömaa wrote: 

> Friedrich Volkmann wrote: 
> 
>> It's *not* destination, see my other posts.
>> To put it more clearly:
>> "destination" targets a location, while Anrainerverkehr targets people.
>> You can also see it like this:
>> "destination" is about where you go, while Anrainerverkehr is about what you
>> wanna do there.
> 
> Hi, after watching this debate my answer turned out to be a longer one:
> 
> I think here's the crucial point that should give us the path to a solution.
> Anreiner or Anleiter or Anreinerverkehr is not a type of access, but a
> group, similar to disabled badge holders but it depends on the area.
> 
> But first we ought to look at this from a distance, a step farther away from
> any traffic signs. There can be two reasons for setting up a limit that
> doesn't apply to some road users: 1) it could be used as a through route,
> but the through traffic should go somewhere else, or 2) it's a dead end area
> where any "incidental" traffic would make the "necessary" traffic
> harder, or irritate
> the residents or other "local users" (here being "dead end" does not exclude
> several entry points from a single through route road next to the area). In (2)
> the restriction might also be set to stop people from searching roadside
> parking in the area when they're actually going somewhere outside the limited
> area. Or, there case 3) the road doesn't lead anywhere except to a private
> property, or to a few private properties, so that drivers don't enter by mistake
> when they don't want to go there.
> 
> For (1), no matter what the signage is, the actual restriction should be
> demonstrably violated only when a driver that entered at point A exits at
> point B, without stopping in the area for any non-traffic activity. I.e. if they
> parked, visited any place within the area and started a new journey they can
> again choose freely which way they want to go. The traffic signs usually use
> meanings resembling "no through traffic" or "except for destination traffic".
> 
> For (2), countries and cities have used various different methods, from the
> here-mentioned Italian system of permission stickers (for later: 2a) or the
> "residents only" (2b), to the more general "Anreinerverkehr" (2c) and the
> exceptions like "except for destination traffic" (yes, the same as in case 1)
> or "driving to properties allowed" (2d). From what we've read here, some
> drivers have been in some countries presumably cited for driving onto a
> road where they didn't personally live or work at permanently, but where
> they still had their destination.
> 
> (A question about 2a above, I hope it wasn't used to mean the ZTL, which
> is a bit different restriction? That too means, roughly, that some groups are
> allowed to drive in 24/7, the rest only at night time.)
> 
> For (3), the usual is "driving to properties allowed", or similar,
> again the same
> as in 1 and 2d.
> 
> Nevertheless, most of the restrictions in all (1), (2) and (3) try to make sure
> only people with a reason to visit any non-traffic destination in just that area
> enter those roads; [motor]_vehicle=destination is the best fitting tag.
> 
> The rest of this is assuming that it would (presently) lead to an enforceable
> traffic violation to, say, a delivery driver to drive past an
> "Anreiner frei" sign?
> 
> Then, if we look at what I replied to: sometimes the signs restrict the
> traffic by "who", not by destination. I.e. in the Anreinerverkehr case, if,
> unless you were a resident of that road (or area), parking legally on the
> road and taking a walk in the park next to the road could lead to a
> enforceable traffic violation, it's no longer about the destination, but which
> group of people you, or the passengers, belong to. It's not about the "for
> a purpose (like agricultural, forestry, delivery), nor "by permission", and
> it's not about how your vehicle is registered as (the key part)
> 
> The number of different access tag values should be kept to a minimum,
> because a) different groups lead to, in many cases, semicolon separated
> lists when multiple groups have access, and b) the "by group" values would
> still not be globally identical. Using this discussion as an example, software
> would need to know that vehicle=anreiner* is different from
> vehicle=anreinerverkehr*; and both are or might be different from
> vehicle=anleiter*. And for routing, they would _have_ to ask the user what
> group they are, otherwise the nearest routable destination point on road
> could be far away where the restriction starts.
> 
> (*or whatever value would be used)
> 
> There's already a list of "by use" keys in on the Key:access page, although
> only "disabled" is directly comparable; any vehicle where the user is a member
> of the group of "blue badge holders (UK) or other such disabled
> persons' permit".
> The fact that one belongs to group does not need to be restricted to a
> physical document obtained beforehand, and the group membership can be
> valid only for a small area.
> 
> Also to reply to what Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 
> 
>> "private" is "Only with permission of the owner on an individual basis"
>> this is kind of vague, but from what it says literally it clearly doesn't apply
> 
> In practical terms, whatever the legal ground is, a user encountering the value
> "private" can decipher that if they already know they have permission to use it,
> they can, and if they don't know, they can't unless they ask permission from
> somewhere. Likewise, for "permissive", the legalities don't matter per se, but
> the fact that a user can expect to be allowed to use it, but in some cases or
> on some days the road might be blocked once you get there. Other road users
> - for which the private-valued key doesn't apply - on the other hand know that
> they could encounter a vehicle of that private type on that road.
> 
> So, after a long talk, the two possible solutions: (first is similar
> to what Marc
> Gemis suggested in more recent messages)
> 
> - if you can drive there as long as you stop there for whatever reason, i.e.
> you would tell a navigator to set the destination there, it's =destination. The
> software can't be expected to know what your reason to go there is, or if
> you have a property there, or whatever is locally relevant. The routing will
> give you a correct route, not going through any other such areas, and if
> you're Anreinerverkehr or Anleiter or whatever, you pass the signs legally.
> 
> Only if you're not part of that group for the destination you requested, there
> would be something to consider: if the road had been tagged as private, you
> could have been told the last part is private=you need to _know_ you have
> permission, or you would only get a route up to the restriction starting point.
> (If it were tagged "yes", you would abruptly stop at the traffic sign and figure
> out you need to park somewhere else and walk)
> 
> - however, if there are reasons why setting a destination there is subject
> to "doesn't belong to a group of people" limits, let's invent a new key,
> or a group of keys. Those tags could then be used to tell that if the user
> has a destination there, they can go, but there may be reasons that they
> legally can't set a (motor) destination there.
> 
> So, the tags, for example:
> 
> motor_vehicle=destination
> + destination:limited=Anreinerverkehr
> (latter would apply to whatever mode has =destination)
> + destination:limited:something=Johannesbach fishing resort
> when not obvious and when necessary to describe which is the only
> possible point of "contact" the local system requires.
> 
> or, if necessary (doubt it, but for future reference)
> destination:limited:motor_vehicle=Anleiter
> destination:limited:hgv=(something else)
> 
> The values can be indexed and explained in the wiki, and shown to the
> user as-is or with explanations. Semicolon separated lists could be
> accepted, and likely they would be needed.
> 
> If you _always_ can't go there unless you know you have a specific
> permission
> motor_vehicle=private
> + destination:limited=(local zone reference, or property address, etc.)
> 
> The second possible solution is to use only tags that define the restrictions
> group by group:
> - motor_vehicle=private
> - limited:Anreiner=yes
> - limited:Anreinerverkehr=no
> *
> - motor_vehicle=destination
> - limited:Anreiner=yes
> - limited:Anreinerverkehr=yes
> 
> Here, the prefix "limited:" is used to tell that the latter part is a name of
> a group. limited:disabled= and limited:customers= would be possible
> (this is why I opposed using customers as an access value, it's not a
> legal access type but a group).
> 
> For what's it worth, there's a remotely similar case here in Finland: we
> have lots and lots of no motorized vehicles signs (sometimes together
> with a more relaxed "driving to premises allowed", which on the other hand
> indirectly requires that the destination is beside the road on private property,
> if driving there ever were to be a subject of a legal discussion), with an
> exception literally translated as "maintenance traffic allowed") which has a
> definition that includes all sorts of uses beyond actual "maintenance", like
> more than one under seven year old children for each adult in the car, and
> delivery traffic, and transporting any mobility impaired persons, and picking
> up or dropping of taxi passengers (but no taxis otherwise), and other cases.
> It's not really possible to use existing tags accurately for all these, so some
> of us have just used the tag Fi:huoltoajo=yes; without or with
> motor_vehicle=destination if there's a more relaxed allowance, too. These
> are, however, mostly short service roads and ways where nobody would end
> up by mistake. Marking all of those as "destination" would be wrong - not
> everybody may drive there - and using 6+ tags would be pointless for
> mapping when they weren't even supported. The meaning can be traced
> back to the legal concept, if somebody ever decides to support it in software.
> This is just another way to tag the traffic sign (traffic_sign=FI:872), but
> directly on the way as the extent of the sign's validity as opposed to the
> node beside the way describing the sign location only.
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20151008/586d2221/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list