[Talk-GB] Mapping School Streets

[Paul Berry]

*>  This seems to me a potentially useful feature for a relation, but what,
other than the collective name, does "Magdale Quiet Lane" mean? Is there
any prohibition on specific traffic, or a different speed limit? I agree
with Rob that it doesn't look like a "route" but that would be an argument
for a different relation type rather than not using a relation at all.*

Signed and named Quiet Lanes, like Home Zones, are pretty rare (which is
partly what made me want to capture this in some form on OSM). I'm open as
to how best to represent this on OSM. It's not a route but it is a
collection of adjoining roads with special characteristics.

Details are in Know Your Traffic Signs pp 74-75:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/519129/know-your-traffic-signs.pdf

Here's the actual sign for Magdale at one end (with corresponding END of
restriction on the other side): https://goo.gl/maps/2TLfcveeE6CNxgyZ7

Hope this helps in understanding.

Regards,
*Paul*

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 15:21, Steven Hirschorn <steven.hirschorn at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks all for the replies so far:
> Paul Berry said:
>
>> If the scheme has a name, like this one* I mapped not long ago, then I
>> think it's fine to map it as a relation. All the associated ways are
>> related, after all.
>
> This seems to me a potentially useful feature for a relation, but what,
> other than the collective name, does "Magdale Quiet Lane" mean? Is there
> any prohibition on specific traffic, or a different speed limit? I agree
> with Rob that it doesn't look like a "route" but that would be an argument
> for a different relation type rather than not using a relation at all.
> Rob Nickerson said:
>
>> Just remember that adding relations makes it harder for other mappers.
>
> That's a consideration that hadn't occurred to me, thanks for pointing it
> out. I do have a watch on the whole area I usually map in, so would be
> happy to fix up anything that gets broken, but I take the point of being
> wary of unnecessary barriers to new mappers.
>
> Also, nobody has yet answered Steve's original question of how to tag
>> them. type=restriction is not correct as that is for turn restrictions
>> (hence the JOSM error) and Paul's example using type=route doesn't feel
>> right to me either.
>
> I was thinking they *could* be mapped as turn restrictions (with timed
> exemptions), though some might be continuation of a straight line way.
> There is a no_entry option, if I remember rightly, but that would usually
> be reserved for the exit end of oneway ways? Does anyone know if any
> routers implement timed restrictions yet anyway, whether applied to ways or
> to relations? I'd like to record it so that routers could adjust routes
> according to the time of day even if none implement them yet. Also at the
> moment I have timed "access:destination" tags, but that's probably too open
> - destination would presumably include deliveries and visitors, whereas
> access is to permit holders only at designated times. Some of the
> restrictions are becoming quite tricky to map! I feel that even permit
> holders are discouraged from using vehicles at the designated times. Maybe
> it should be "access:private" at the designated times?
>
> Stephen Colebourne said:
>
>> {`traffic_intervention` has been discussed on this list before, and now
>> has 655 uses mostly `school_street` but also `modal_filter` and `bus_gate`)
>
> Yes, I like the tags - thanks for suggesting them in the original thread.
>
> Jez Nicholson said:
>
>> Much as I like the idea of being able to see the full scheme in one place
>> (in a relation), it does rely on additional knowledge of said scheme rather
>> than observations on the ground.
>
> I don't really understand this point - the Gazette Traffic Notices are
> very explicit on where and when the closures are, so it's easy to map from
> that point of view. Is your concern about the validity of the changes until
> signs are displayed, or the potential for slight differences in the signage
> and the original traffic order? I actually find the restrictions easier to
> understand once mapped, compared to the lengthy sometimes convoluted
> descriptions in the traffic orders.
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2022 at 07:11, Jez Nicholson <jez.nicholson at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Much as I like the idea of being able to see the full scheme in one place
>> (in a relation), it does rely on additional knowledge of said scheme rather
>> than observations on the ground.
>>
>> If the mapping of the scheme is built up piece-by-piece by observing road
>> signage it makes modelling as individual turn restrictions more palatable.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2022, 23:06 Rob Nickerson, <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe. I'm no expert when it comes to OSM relation tagging but know that
>>> they are misused at times so thought wise to query it here. I'm still not
>>> convinced but won't loose any sleep over it. Just remember that adding
>>> relations makes it harder for other mappers.
>>>
>>> Also, nobody has yet answered Steve's original question of how to tag
>>> them. type=restriction is not correct as that is for turn restrictions
>>> (hence the JOSM error) and Paul's example using type=route doesn't feel
>>> right to me either.
>>>
>>> A look at TagInfo doesn't show any obvious candidate:
>>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/type#values
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2022, 22:32 Paul Berry, <pmberry2007 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the scheme has a name, like this one* I mapped not long ago, then I
>>>> think it's fine to map it as a relation. All the associated ways are
>>>> related, after all.
>>>>
>>>> *https://osm.org/relation/12024347
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> *Paul*
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 at 18:03, Steven Hirschorn <
>>>> steven.hirschorn at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the reply. I was thinking for two reasons:
>>>>> 1) because the hours of operation might change, or the whole scheme
>>>>> may be scrapped, so a relation would allow that to be changed in one place
>>>>> rather than manually looking for any ways that are covered by a scheme
>>>>> 2) because it would be handy to have an identifier for a particular
>>>>> scheme
>>>>> They can get more complex than the straight-line way I used earlier,
>>>>> such as this one (if I got the Overpass query right)
>>>>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1kbv
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2022 at 17:49, Rob Nickerson <rob.j.nickerson at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think that's the right case to use a relation for. For
>>>>>> example, we don't put speed limits in a relation so why put this form of
>>>>>> restriction in one?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See Usage section of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Rob
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>>>>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>>>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20220718/4ae3eb5f/attachment-0001.htm>