[Talk-GB] Mapping School Streets

[Steven Hirschorn]

Ah, great, thanks! I'd heard of home zones but not quiet lanes. I'm
guessing the highway=living_street would influence a router, while your
relation provides a single ID and URL for the whole zone? The same sort of
thing I was looking for (except it would be nice not to have to put the
conditional restrictions on the individual ways)

On Mon, 18 Jul 2022, 18:52 Paul Berry, <pmberry2007 at gmail.com> wrote:

> *>  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/da43e0ee/attachment.htm>