[OSM-talk-be] Voertuigklassen (was: Tagging voetgangerszone gent)

[Ben Laenen]

On Wednesday 10 October 2012 21:05:47 Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 03:03:53PM +0200, Ben Laenen wrote:
> > In België valt alles met bestuurders onder vehicle=*, er zijn landen waar
> > dat niet zo is (en ik neem aan dat niemand verkeersbord C3 ooit heeft
> > vertaald als vehicle=no + horse=no).  Als je de wegcode eens leest zal
> > je merken dat er ook altijd over bestuurders gesproken wordt i.p.v.
> > voertuigen.
> 
> According to the current tree that's in the wiki, that's the
> proper way to tag it.

Just like most pages on the wiki, that page is just there to give a general 
idea, but every country has to make its own rules and interpretations. The 
traffic code is different in every country, so we shouldn't try to mold 
everything in the world into one ruleset for all tags, because we simply can't 
do that.


> But it's unclear to me what to do with ski and inline_skates
> and ice_skates.  I can happely ignore this, and assume
> that it's the same as foot.
> 
> What I always wanted was some page that says if you see a sign,
> or those combination of signs you should map it like that.
> 
> For instance if there is a sign C3 with "uitgezonderd plaatselijk
> verkeer" that means forbidden for "bestuurders" with the exception
> of destination.  But it's also allowed for bicycle and horse.  So
> I would expect that to be like this:
> access=destination
> bicycle=yes
> horse=yes
> 
> Or:
> vehicle=destination
> bicycle=yes

It's either just access=destination, or vehicle=destination, whatever you 
prefer. The "destination" part will allow cyclists and horse riders, as per 
its definition in Belgium.

To make it even more weird, strictly speaking, bicycle=destination still 
allows all cyclists, because when you'd have such a traffic sign for no 
cyclists with "uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer", the traffic code has in its 
definition for "plaatselijk verkeer" the exception for all cyclists.

Hence adding bicycle=yes or horse=yes is meaningless.


> I think there is tool for josm that can do tagging based on signs,
> but I never used it.
> 
> > Maar we zouden ook
> > zo eens een boom moeten maken voor België, alleen gaat dat weer de nodige
> > discussies leveren.
> 
> I'm not sure this is a good idea.  It might make sense for people
> editing it, because they "map what they see". But then you need to
> special case Belgium in software, and I don't think everything
> using osm will properly do that.

Software will have to move towards supporting different rules in different 
countries anyway. Or better yet, make a library that takes tags in each 
country and gives an answer to software whether something is allowed and what 
its restrictions are.

And then you'll probably ask: why not tag the end result? Because (a) rules 
change, and (b) tagging every little bit of information is impossible. So we 
use a tag set that's friendly to mappers. Mapper friendly means one sign/one 
bit of information on a sign equals one tag.

Case in point: I still have to find the first road in Belgium tagged with 
access=destination that explicitely adds bicycle=yes and horse=yes (oh yes, 
except a road where I added it myself because it had an extra "uitgezonderd 
fietsers" sign below the "uitgezonderd plaatstelijk verkeer".

Ben