[Talk-ca] highway=living_street

[Jarek Piórkowski]

I just came across https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24367165 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/24367165#map=16/49.5015/-117.2838> in Nelson, BC - I don't think that's proper tagging and it should probably be a route=lcn relation over existing ways highway=residential with cycleway=shared_lane, at most? 

--Jarek

On Mon, May 22, 2023, at 14:11, Paul Norman wrote:
> On 2023-05-16 11:18 a.m., John Whelan wrote:
> > We seem to have a few creeping into the map in Canada.  In Europe they 
> > have a legal meaning is that the case in Canada or is it just wishful 
> > thinking?
> 
> 
> I'm not aware of any provinces in Canada or states in the US which 
> define living streets, although the wiki notes New York City has some 
> where pedestrians and cyclists have right of way and only low-speed 
> local traffic is permitted.
> 
> In Vancouver we've ended up with highway=living_street used for 
> privately owned roads that are part of townhouse developments. I believe 
> this is uniformly incorrect as they do not have the pedestrian priority 
> that defines living streets, and after some checking will be doing 
> retagging of the ones near me.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20230524/8dccaaa2/attachment.htm>