[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver

[Colin Smale]

On 2016-06-24 11:47, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> 2016-06-24 11:20 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl>:
> 
>> In OSM there has always been "space" to add new detail. What one person finds a ridiculous level of micro-mapping, someone else may consider valuable data. For example, I as a cyclist am not bothered about maxheight=* but truck drivers are. In the past there has been no clear process evident for deciding where to draw the line. If someone wants to create a navigation model for learner drivers, then why not? Who are we to say "that doesn't belong in OSM"? Where are the rules for that? Our job as a community is to guide the development of the tagging so that it is fit for purpose (now and looking into the future) and compatible with what is already there.
> 
> is this a confirmation that there are no individual signs and that this is a general rule applying to all motorways?

Yes, you are right about that (in the case of the UK anyway). So a
"router for learners" should infer the prohibition from
"highway=motorway" or "highway=motorway_link". Motorways (and a couple
of trunk roads) in the UK actually have a funny status called "special
road" - they are not a public highway, and no traffic is allowed except
what is explicitly permitted by law. 

> The problem I see with adding tags like this (presumed that the previous sentence is correct) is that they tend to obfuscate the "important" tags, because when you start to add to every road and park and forest "carrying firearms not allowed unless you have a specific license" and thousands of tags for all other generic rules of law in your country, the list of tags becomes _very_ long. I've already encountered roads without a highway tag, but with long lists of foot=yes, bicycle=yes, vehicle=yes, motor_vehicle=yes, hgv=yes, psv=yes, ...

I know what you mean Martin... +1... 

//colin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160624/e79f3cc9/attachment.html>