[Tagging] Comments on documenting winter speed limits tagging

Tobias Knerr osm at tobias-knerr.de
Wed Apr 24 20:57:12 UTC 2019

On 04.04.19 13:33, Jyri-Petteri Paloposki wrote:
> The feedback was quite limited and you or anyone else expressed no
> definite stance against documenting the current practice.

At least in my case, that's because I expected my mail to be a
contribution to a discussion that would (hopefully) end with a
consensus. I did not interpret your original mail as a "call for vetos".

As it stands, there was no response to the criticism in the original
thread. Rather, a wiki page suddenly (from my point of view) came into
existence, and had I not pre-emptively added that page name to my wiki
watchlist, I wouldn't even know.

But enough about past misunderstandings, and thanks for summarizing the
discussion on #osm-fi. I can at least understand the reluctance to go
with conditional restrictions in that case. I do still wonder about the
reasons for ruling out the other alternatives, though. As I said before:

> On 3.4.2019 19.40, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>> Even if we keep "winter" in the key, the
>> ":seasonal" should definitely be dropped. After all, we use
>> maxspeed:forward (not maxspeed:directional:forward) and maxspeed:hgv
>> (not maxspeed:vehicular:hgv).

The pros and cons of conditions are more complex, but maxspeed:winter
seems like a straightforward improvement:

* It's shorter and simpler.
* It follows the same format as firmly established keys like
maxspeed:hgv or maxspeed:forward.
* It's a bit easier for data consumers because keys like
maxspeed:winter:forward are often handled by splitting at every ':'
character, which would also break apart the "seasonal:maxspeed".

So far, I believe, no one on this list has argued that
maxspeed:seasonal:winter is actually better (as opposed to more common)
than maxspeed:winter.


More information about the Tagging mailing list