[OSM-talk-be] Usage of "access=designated" in Belgium

[Lennard]

Ben Laenen wrote:

> Of course, there's still access=destination which has to be used a lot 
> in Belgium, but since you bring it up, this "uitgezonderd plaatselijk 
> verkeer" exception doesn't apply to horse riders, cyclists or 
> pedestrians (even though they don't seem to realize that in various 

Be careful how you word things like this. If the *exception* doesn't 
apply, the *drivers* you mentioned fall under the original scope of the 
C3 sign, which is 'Verboden toegang, in beide richtingen, voor ieder 
bestuurder/Accès interdit, dans les deux sens, à tout conducteur', and 
they can't ever enter, even when* they're destination traffic.

* Barring other rules buried in the applicable laws, see below.

> places where I've seen the no access sign with both "uitgezonderd 
> plaatselijk verkeer" and the except bicycles sign...), so that's also 
> something we need to write down somewhere.

Yes, I've got several examples of those nearby. C3+destination and then 
'fietsers toegestaan' http://www.wegcode.be/images/verkeerstekens/m2.gif
or 'fietsers/bromfietsen klasse A' 
http://www.wegcode.be/images/verkeerstekens/m3.gif.

  2.47.   De opschriften "uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer" of 
"plaatselijke bediening" duiden op een openbare weg die slechts 
toegankelijk is voor de voertuigen van de bewoners van die straat en van 
hun bezoekers, de voertuigen voor levering inbegrepen; ook voertuigen 
voor onderhoud en toezicht, wanneer de aard van hun opdracht dit 
rechtvaardigt, de prioritaire voertuigen bedoeld in artikel 37 en 
fietsers en ruiters, hebben er zonder uitzondering toegang.

2.47.   Les termes " excepté circulation locale " ou " desserte locale " 
désignent une voie publique qui n'est accessible qu'aux véhicules des 
riverains de cette rue et des personnes se rendant ou venant de chez 
l'un d'eux y compris les véhicules de livraison; y sont aussi admis sans 
exceptions les véhicules des services d'entretien et de surveillance, 
lorsque la nature de leur mission le justifie, les véhicules 
prioritaires visés à l'article 37 et les cyclistes et les cavaliers.

You learn something new every day. I can understand why people would 
misunderstand, if you take only the traffic signs into consideration.

Pedestrians can already ignore C3 anyway.

> And now that we're talking about access rules :-) ... In the past I've 
> sometimes used access=no where traffic isn't allowed, but pedestrians 
> are, but I didn't use a foot=yes tag. Now, should we also have some 
> implicit rule that access=no doesn't apply to pedestrians similarly 
> like the access=destination tag above, or do we prefer explicit 
> foot=yes in these cases? Did other people have the habit of forgetting 
> to add foot=yes as well? I guess it's better to have explicit foot=yes, 
> since I think people will forget foot=no more often when access is 
> really not allowed.

I believe it's helpful to look at the routers. A router can not have 
immediate knowledge of the local tagging usage and guidelines. It likes 
things to be explicit. The discrepancy here is that access=no is defined 
for all 'traffic' but signs like C3 only apply to 'vehicles'. So from a 
tagging and routing perspective, you need foot=yes with 'vehicles not 
allowed' signs, so routing for pedestrians can use the road.

And yes, I usually forget to include foot=yes as well. Thanks for 
reminding me to improve my tagging. That's the problem with pedestrians: 
they're almost always implicitly allowed everywhere, but people mostly 
have cars/bikes in mind when tagging non-foot ways.


-- 
Lennard