Re: [Tagging] new access value

[John Willis]

> On Oct 11, 2015, at 12:35 AM, Éric Gillet  wrote:
> 
> Hello, 
> I know this is not a vote or anything close, but wanted to say I don't think 
> a ban, especially a month-long ban, was warranted by Frederik's two last 
> messages.

I disagree with Frederik's position often,  but he is aggressive because he is 
passionate. He felt offended from a post and responded with a somewhat "tame" 
rebuke to the slight. The line he said he was responding to was equally 
"offensive" to someone who is passionate about their topic - espcially if we 
take his comment in the stongest possible way - when it is usually a flippant 
retort to such a slight. 

He's not here proposing garbage tags - and not purposefully antagonizing people.

His big mistake was not following the mod's direct order. Which he should have 
- just like "following the ref's call" is pretty sacrosanct. 

I hope he returns to the list to be his same old self. 

Javbw 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[John Willis]

> On Oct 11, 2015, at 12:35 AM, Éric Gillet  wrote:
> 
> Hello, 
> I know this is not a vote or anything close, but wanted to say I don't think 
> a ban, especially a month-long ban, was warranted by Frederik's two last 
> messages.

Oops - forgot to add:

 +1

Javbw
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Marc Gemis]

It was my impression that the discussed had cooled down before the
moderator brought the particular mail back up after 1 of 2 days. Although
there was a particular moment that I thought, "guys, please relax, take a
deep breath", but I thought that moment was behind us.

But still I'm not in favour of a ban in this case, at least not if that one
idiom is the cause. If it is for is reaction on the moderators request, I
don't have an opinion. I think everyone has the right to defend himself and
when you are corrected via a public medium, you might react heftier than
when this is done in a face to face situation. Nevertheless the moderator
should have the last word.

I wonder whether warnings from a moderator have to be send via the mailing
list. I don't know that the policy is about this, but perhaps a private
message might be more appropriate ?

Still looking forward to a further discussion on the access-tag extension.
We need to find out whether should find a decent translation for his
Austrian case (and perhaps other rules specific for 1 country) or whether
we should go for a approximation combined with a extra tag referring to the
native word or traffic sign.


regards

m

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 8:42 PM, John Willis  wrote:

>
>
> > On Oct 11, 2015, at 12:35 AM, Éric Gillet 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> > I know this is not a vote or anything close, but wanted to say I don't
> think a ban, especially a month-long ban, was warranted by Frederik's two
> last messages.
>
> Oops - forgot to add:
>
>  +1
>
> Javbw
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Éric Gillet]

Hello,
I know this is not a vote or anything close, but wanted to say I don't
think a ban, especially a month-long ban, was warranted by Frederik's two
last messages.

Maybe the problematic idiom was a bit harsh, but most of the posts
contributed to the ongoing discussion.

2015-10-10 10:49 GMT+02:00 Richard Fairhurst :

> I have suspended Friedrich Volkmann from this list for one month for
> incivility.
>
> Please be tolerant and considerate in your postings, and avoid insults. If
> you do not understand a particular idiom, please don't use it.
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Richard Fairhurst]

I have suspended Friedrich Volkmann from this list for one month for 
incivility.


Please be tolerant and considerate in your postings, and avoid insults. 
If you do not understand a particular idiom, please don't use it.


Richard
tagging@ list admin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 10/10/2015 12:12 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> can you please explain, where? Is it because he didn't "retract" the
> "get a life"? Or because he was complaining that he got rebuked and
> Florian wasn't?

I think that mailing lists work like football games in that respect. In
a football game, if the referee makes any decision, however stupid it
may be, players are expected to follow that decision (and afterwards one
can discuss the decision in detail).

A player responding to a referee's decision with a cocky request for an
explanation, or a cocky explanation of why the player believes the
decision doesn't apply to him, will be excluded from the game.

Should it later turn out the the original decision of the referee was
wrong, then the exclusion of the player was still rule-conforming
because the player had opposed the referee.

Might not be fair but it's the rules, and without them, referees would
be pretty useless.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Richard Fairhurst]

dieterdreist wrote:
> Is it because he didn't "retract" the "get a life"?

Yes.

The mailing lists are generally better than the nadir of a couple of years
ago and it's incumbent on us all to make sure they don't descend to that
state again. It is absolutely not ok to respond to someone who is trying to
make a reasoned argument with a dismissive, personal insult such as "get a
life". An environment where that sort of speech is accepted is not a
collaborative, welcoming one, and OSM can only succeed if people are
prepared to collaborate.

Friedrich has not been indefinitely banned, he's been suspended from this
one list for one month. (Contrast with Xxzme/d1g who was banned from the
whole wiki for three months.) I hope he will return in a month and be able
to engage constructively, politely and with tolerance for others.

Richard




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/new-access-value-tp5856193p5856716.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 09.10.2015 23:44, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
>> Contribute something useful, or get a life.
> 
> Please retract that insult, and agree not to post such comments in the
> future, or you will be removed from this list.

What insult? Do you mean me or him? He offended me by writing: "You dont get
it dont you?" - indicating that I am stupid.

Anyway, I don't see a reason why you interfere in this quarrel. It was
already over. Now you are firing it up again. As a moderator, you should
rather calm people down than inflame. And you should use personal messages
instead of public accusation - which always makes someone lose face.

Consider that neither he nor me are native English speakers. We use phrases
according to our dictionaries. I cautiously check whether phrases like "get
a life" may be insulting. I wouldn't use an insult intentionally. But
dictionaries may contain errors.

For the same reason, I think that Nikita (Xxxzme) should not have been
banned from this list. His alleged "strong language" was mainly due to a
lack of language skills. It is a pity that most russians don't participate
in international discussions. With their limited knowledge of the English
language, most of them don't even try. Those who do, get banned. This is
concerning. Deprived of international communication, they make up their own
tagging schemes, and OSM becomes increasingly balkanized.

So when you moderate a group, keep in mind that sometimes less is more.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 09.10.2015 23:42, ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> localised meaning does not always have to be parsed into universal
>>> tags.
>>>
>>> Here in the UK we have very specific access legislation for paths. On a
>>> bridleway, for example, cycling is permitted, but cycle racing is forbidden,
>>> and cannot be authorised (whereas it can be authorised on other rights of
>>> way). Then we have "restricted byways". And "byways open to all traffic".
>>> And "unclassified county roads". And so on.
>> Sounds more like a road type issue than an access tags issue.
> 
> It's not a road type issue.  It's not especially uncommon to have a "legal
> right of access" that legally allows vehicles that physically won't fit.

This discussion is about access tags, hence legal right of access. In this
context, physical fit does not matter.

>>> So we use the standard OSM broad-brush duck tagging (highway=track,
>>> highway=footway, highway=cycleway etc.) and add a UK-specific value to
>>> record the legal status of the path (designation=public_bridleway,
>>> designation=restricted_byway, designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic etc.).
>>> That way, it's easy to map, easy to parse in outline, possible to parse in
>>> detail, and doesn't impose a burden on the 95% of non-UK mappers or the 99%
>>> of data consumers who don't care.
>> However, the data consumers who do care have a hard time.
> 
> I do care (I create maps that incorporate these rights of way), and don't
> have a hard time.

Are you UK-based by any chance? Of course everyone incorporates the tags
used by the own community.

How do you handle designation=Državna_cesta?

> "creating a proprietary tag" is effectively exactly what you're proposing
> (the first line of the first message in this thread was "I intend to write a
> proposal for a new access=* value, but I don't know a reasonable tag name.").

This tag will not be proprietary. It will have a clearly defined meaning, it
will be documented in the usal wiki pages, and everyone all over the world
is free to use it.

> You're entirely within your rights to use a new "access" value, and everyone
> else (router developers included) is entirely within their rights (and very
> likely) to ignore it.

Application developers in countries where such roads exist will certainly
support the tag right from the start, and others will follow when usage
numbers increase.

Anyway, I don't care whether the tag is supported. I don't do "mapping for
routers". If they want to use it, that's fine. If they ignore it, that's
fine too. Nobody is forced to use their software.

> This does a worse job of communicating the access
> rights to the intended audience than "access=destination with some sort of
> caveat" would.

A proposal (with certainly plenty of discussion) and the subsequent
documentation at key:access will be sufficient communication. We don't need
to visit every developer on Earth personally for every new tag.

> There are routers out there that don't understand that bicycle access on
> trunk roads is country dependant, or that it might be possible to route
> _through_ gates on tracks; do you really think that they'll cope well with
> an access value that they've never heard of?

Yes, because the new value will neither be country-dependent (as bicycle on
trunk) nor lockable (as a gate).

I reckon that most applications will treat the new tag as a synonym for
access=yes or no, just as they do for
access=destination/delivery/agricultural/etc. But applications will
elaborate over the years, and we don't want to remap all data when
applications happen to be ready.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Richard Fairhurst]

Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> Contribute something useful, or get a life.

Please retract that insult, and agree not to post such comments in the
future, or you will be removed from this list.

Thank you.

Richard
tagging@ list admin



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/new-access-value-tp5856193p5856674.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 08.10.2015 12:16, Lauri Kytömaa wrote:
(...a lot. I try to narrow it down to the critical passages.)

> sometimes the signs restrict the
> traffic by "who", not by destination. I.e. in the Anreinerverkehr case,
> [...] it's no longer about the destination, but which
> group of people you, or the passengers, belong to. It's not about the "for
> a purpose (like agricultural, forestry, delivery), nor "by permission", and
> it's not about how your vehicle is registered as (the key part)
> 
> The number of different access tag values should be kept to a minimum,
[...]
> There's already a list of "by use" keys in on the Key:access page, although
> only "disabled" is directly comparable;

The access tags are built like this:
=

"disabled" is not a mode of transport. Therefore, it should rather be a
value than a key. The reason it is a key is because it was introduced in
OSM's stone age.

Let's have a look at the currently documented values:
yes, private, no, permissive, agricultural, use_sidepath, delivery,
designated, dismount, discouraged, forestry, destination, customers.

Some belong to the "purpose" category, but others belong to the "group of
people" category, and some values don't fit in either category.

yes ... (matches any category)
no ... (matches any category)
private ... owners and people with granted permission => group of people
permissive ... all except people with revoked permisson => group of people
agricultural ... purpose
use_sidepath ... same as "no" + hint to traffic sign
delivery ... purpose
designated ... same as "yes" + hint to traffic sign
dismount ... same as "no" + hint to traffic sign
discouraged ... same as "yes" + hint to traffic sign
forestry ... purpose
destination ... route geometry
customers ... group of people

So we've got 3x "group of people". The new tag will just be the forth in
that category.

> - however, if there are reasons why setting a destination there is subject
> to "doesn't belong to a group of people" limits, let's invent a new key,
> or a group of keys.

If you like to move the "group of people" category to new keys, you need to
deprecate access=private/permissive/customers to stay consistent.

> Those tags could then be used to tell that if the user
> has a destination there, they can go, but there may be reasons that they
> legally can't set a (motor) destination there.
> 
> So, the tags, for example:
> 
> motor_vehicle=destination
> + destination:limited=Anreinerverkehr

Non-English values with uppercase letters? Are you serious?
You misspelled it, and other will misspell it too. And nobody except
German-speaking people will have an idea what this tag means. Even among
them, there's a lot of misconception and dispute regarding that word.

> (latter would apply to whatever mode has =destination)
> + destination:limited:something=Johannesbach fishing resort
> when not obvious and when necessary to describe which is the only
> possible point of "contact" the local system requires.

How are routers supposed to make use of that free-text tag?
What does the "something" part mean?
I am quite puzzled, and I fear that data consumers will be too.

> or, if necessary (doubt it, but for future reference)
> destination:limited:motor_vehicle=Anleiter
> destination:limited:hgv=(something else)
> 
> The values can be indexed and explained in the wiki, and shown to the
> user as-is or with explanations.

Shown to the user? At what stage? And remember that applications are not
limited to route calculation. Displaying lists with explanations for each
single road may get difficult in a paper map.

> The second possible solution is to use only tags that define the restrictions
> group by group:
> - motor_vehicle=private
> - limited:Anreiner=yes
> - limited:Anreinerverkehr=no

Non-English words with uppercase letters even in keys?

> *
> - motor_vehicle=destination
> - limited:Anreiner=yes
> - limited:Anreinerverkehr=yes
> 
> Here, the prefix "limited:" is used to tell that the latter part is a name of
> a group. limited:disabled= and limited:customers= would be possible
> (this is why I opposed using customers as an access value, it's not a
> legal access type but a group).

Anrainerverkehr is not a group. So it does not fit in your tagging scheme.

"limited" sounds like a shortage. When you suggest a tagging scheme about
groups of people, you better name it like motor_vehicle:for=* (compare to
social_facility:for=*).
But it won't work either way, because you are soon getting 2-dimensional.
E.g. for group A it may be vehicle=yes and for group B it may be
vehicle=destination and for group C it may be vehicle=no. You need to
incorporate your scheme into
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions.

Anyway, it's already too late. The ship has sailed. You opposed "customers",
but you did not stop it. Let alone "private", which stands for a group as
well. You will never get access=private deprecated.

> For what's it worth, 

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Richard Fairhurst]

Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> I don't care how many countries are affected. It's a distinctive meaning, 
> so it deserves a distinctive tag. I get really angry whenever people 
> write "I oppose that tag because I don't need it in my country." 

Indeed.

However, localised meaning does not always have to be parsed into universal
tags.

Here in the UK we have very specific access legislation for paths. On a
bridleway, for example, cycling is permitted, but cycle racing is forbidden,
and cannot be authorised (whereas it can be authorised on other rights of
way). Then we have "restricted byways". And "byways open to all traffic".
And "unclassified county roads". And so on.

It's madly complex. It would be inappropriate to ask the rest of the world
to accept special tag values just for this specific use, but on the other
hand, it's not realistic for UK mappers to break this down into 30 'atomic'
tags per path. (Especially because the permissions for each path type do
occasionally get redefined, as per
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/contents.)

So we use the standard OSM broad-brush duck tagging (highway=track,
highway=footway, highway=cycleway etc.) and add a UK-specific value to
record the legal status of the path (designation=public_bridleway,
designation=restricted_byway, designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic etc.).
That way, it's easy to map, easy to parse in outline, possible to parse in
detail, and doesn't impose a burden on the 95% of non-UK mappers or the 99%
of data consumers who don't care. It's the same approach as the
'motorroad=yes' tag used by German mappers.

I would encourage you to follow this approach, rather than trying to
overload the solution for a localised problem onto a universal tag.

Richard




--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/new-access-value-tp5856193p5856628.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-08 4:21 GMT+02:00 John Willis :

>
> The police have no power because the road is public and built, so people
> are legally allowed to drive on it.



that's also the reason why those "Anlieger frei" situations should be
reduced to a minimum, we're all public and these roads have been built with
our money (normally, when its a private road the situation is a bit
different), why should the use be restricted to people living there? That's
why these signs are mostly set up in particular situations with above
average through traffic for some reason (e.g. touristic places or popular
shortcuts where they try to keep you on the major road but where this major
road has some problem like too much traffic at certain times or series of
red lights slowing you deliberately down). The far more often used measures
are reduced maxspeeds (30kph in residential areas) or living streets
(7kph), or oneway constellations which let you not cut through, or traffic
calming like humps and bumps and chicanes.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Tom Pfeifer]

Friedrich Volkmann wrote on 2015-10-08 08:09:

Built-in car navigation is dumb by now. Most OSM tags are ignored, such as
all of the tags documented on
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions.


No, OsmAnd supports conditional times for maxspeed, though currently time only.
https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/issues/1329

tom

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Richard]

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 05:33:12PM +1100, Warin wrote:

> 
> I'd think here 'we' try to tag the ground truth. How it gets used should be
> a small influence, but the primary concern should be making good tags.

tagging the ground truth is good. The ground truth is "sign " at positition
lat.long. We should start doing that. 
The permissions could be derived from those signs, default highway properties 
and 
a combination of country and area specific rules.
The current apporach is a gross oversimplification with limitted validity and 
applicability.

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 08.10.2015 um 12:07 schrieb Colin Smale :
> 
> Don't forget that even simple things like "what is a bicycle" vary from 
> country to country. Is a tricycle a bike? Is an electric bike still a bike? 
> Is a bike pulling a 3-metre trailer still a bike?


There are 2 possibilities here:
the jurisdiction has specific laws for tricycles, or other specific vehicles we 
don't have a vehicle class for, then we should add these vehicle classes in our 
tagging system,


or these vehicles are set to be treated like another vehicle, e.g. to a 
tricycle apply the same rules than to a bicycle, in this case the user will 
have to select the corresponding vehicle class in his application.

There can be a problem when doing international routing, crossing borders where 
the relevant rules change, but a dedicated tricycle router will likely be able 
to compile her maps in a suitable way (using osm country boundaries and 
external data (e.g. osm wiki) to what a tricycle equates in these countries or 
which defaults to choose for missing data).

cheers 
Martin 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Florian Lohoff]

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 03:52:08PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> On 08.10.2015 14:59, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > You dont get it dont you?
> 
> This quarrel is pointless. Contribute something useful, or get a life.
> 

Shortening a response to not contain the content and then complaining
about it?

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
 We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Florian Lohoff]

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 08:41:35PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> 
> > If you include them? What would be the legal sign? I know
> > of none. You can put up signs which say - "Redheads only on
> > mondays" but thats nothing OSM could or should follow.
> 
> There are no redheads signs, because they would be discriminating.
> There *are* signs for like "only on mondays", and there's an approved
> tagging scheme for this:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions

You dont get it dont you? There are ALWAYS signs which are much to
complicated to get tagged correctly in OSM. Abstract and map the 
most likely case which affects non locals.

> >> Fahrverbot + Zusatztafel "ausgenommen Ziele in..."
> > Do you have pictures of something like this?
> 
> Don't you believe me? I know for sure that I saw signs with that wording,
> but I certainly have no photo. So believe it or not.
> 
> You can find similar signs here:
> http://wandertipp.at/andreasbaumgartner/2008/07/01/durchfahrtsverbot-in-leopoldsdorf-unglaublich-aber-wahr/

As i said in my initial mail and rephrased it above - there are always
signs which are impossible to map correctly. And even if you use this
thread to invent 10 new access conditions and tags - noone will ever
use them ...

> 
> >> "Durchfahrt verboten"
> > motor_vehicle=destination or vehicle=destination - depends on
> > what is beeing ment. Might also be a access=private. Varys 
> > on location and usage.
> >> "Durchgang verboten"
> > access=destination?
> 
> Fine. You see that *=destination has a distinctive meaning.

You need to see what you want to achieve. A router will only send you
through a road marked with something=destination if 

a) "something" matches your type of moving -
foot/vehicle/motor_vehicle/hgv
and
b) your destination is on that road.

So - if you have a "Durchfahrt verboten" and its a private road to a
farmyard - Its not Durchfahrt Verboten e.g. something=no because than 
the router would never ever send you in there but its a
something=private which should be treated as destination in the router.
Residents at the end of the road would like to be routed through there.

So - It HEAVILY depends on your context you are mapping in what a sign 
will be interpreted as.

> > You need to accept simplification
> 
> Yet again, you are arguing towards access=yes/no.

Nope ... we have yes/no/destination/private/permissive

which should cover 98% of your signs - The left-over 2% must be
abstracted toward a "catch 80% of the use cases of the sign".

> 
> > - there is NO WAY in the world we can
> > accurately a) tag all ways with any combination of blurp and make b) all
> > data consumers "do the right thing". 
> 
> We *can* do (a), your'e just lacking motivation. You won't get us forward
> with such a mindset.
> 
> I do not care about (b), as that's not a tagging issue.

Okay - please sit down and write parser for access tags and ill feed it 
vehicle type, and destination and the tags and you return if i am allowed to 
enter.

Once you start thinking about it you'll see that we already have a
multi-dimensional matrix which is near impossible to solve and now
you propose to add more columns and rows and dimensions to the already
ultra complex problem.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
 We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Marc Gemis]

On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Lauri Kytömaa  wrote:

> motor_vehicle=destination
> + destination:limited=Anreinerverkehr
> (latter would apply to whatever mode has =destination)
> + destination:limited:something=Johannesbach fishing resort
> when not obvious and when necessary to describe which is the only
> possible point of "contact" the local system requires.
>
> or, if necessary (doubt it, but for future reference)
> destination:limited:motor_vehicle=Anleiter
> destination:limited:hgv=(something else)
>

This approach is more general than the traffic_sign tag I proposed.
Are you aiming for a fixed group of defined values, or is free text OK ?
How would a router have to deal with those free texts (e.g. Johannesbach
fishing resort). ? Defined values make it possible to be be used in
algorithms, free text not.

regards

m
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 08.10.2015 16:05, Marc Gemis wrote:
> Just as your new value. That is not documented neither. A new value or a new
> key, both have to be documented and implemented.

A new tag value fits more into an existing tagging scheme than a new key.

Some applications (such as even the standard renderer, as I was told) run
with a separate database where only a small list of keys is imported.

And with a new key, you have to handle more conflicts.
Say, vehicle=yes + traffic_sign=no_vehicles.
This causes headache to other mappers as well as application developers.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 08.10.2015 04:21, John Willis wrote:
> How do they enforce it in Europe? Stickers on cars? Stop and ask? 

In cities, there are lots of 30 km/h speed limits, oneways and
traffic_calming=* to deter cutters. Parking requires a sticker on the car.
Residents need to pay for it (around 150 €/year in Vienna), others won't get
it at all. There are police-like troops who roam the streets at night,
looking for parking violators.

In rural settlements, the police can stop you and ask, but it is unlikely
that they come across you on minor roads. When they want to make money, they
usually hide in a bush near a primary road and measure speeds. On minor
roads, you rather get in conflict with residents. When you drive thru a road
where this is forbidden, or when you park on their property, they make a
photo of your car and then sue you.

It also depends on the country. In Germany, only the driver can be fined. So
they need to make a photo of the driver. In Austria, all they need is the
number on your licence plate. Whenever they don't know the driver, they fine
the car owner.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[John Willis]

> On Oct 8, 2015, at 2:43 AM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:
> 
> http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/12/no_through_traffic_signs_in_ne.html.
> This case would be unthinkable here in Central Europe.

The police have no power because the road is public and built, so people are 
legally allowed to drive on it. There is no division between locals and 
visitors because we're all "public". Public roads are truly "public" roads. 
Your "house" begins at your property line.

With this in mind, private roads, gated communities, and other privately owned 
places exist in order to gate off road to (among other things)  stop 
non-residents from cutting through. 

Roads very often times have turn restrictions to avoid short-cutters near busy 
intersections - but for roads leading into communities (for a long cut-through 
between arterial roads), they really can't stop people from entering - and the 
idea of checking drivers' licenses for residence information is unlawful stop 
and search - what crime is the person committing by entering or exiting the 
community how would the police be bale to tell who os a resident? Since there 
is no assumption of a crime, a police stop AFAIK would be an illegal stop. 

So new residential neighborhoods are very convoluted and full of dead ends to 
make the through path longer and slower (and covered with stop signs) to deter 
cutters. 

Also - the police put a speed trap in the middle, as cutters are usually 
speeding, so a 50mph in a 25mph residential street is a hefty ticket. 

So no, there is no way to enforce "thru traffic" signs, but there are several 
other ways to deter or eliminate cutters through other means, but old roads are 
usually out of luck. 

How do they enforce it in Europe? Stickers on cars? Stop and ask? 

They use stickers/passes for parking on the street enforcement in 
busy/congested places (near the beach, near colleges).

I live in Japan now, and I have to show my residence card upon request for any 
reason by an official or police anywhere. Since I am not Asian, I have never 
been asked. 

In America, just stating "I am an American" is grounds for them to stop talking 
to me and let me go even at a (somewhat illegal) "immigration checkpoint" they 
do randomly on highways - it is against US law to detain a citizen for no 
reason - Especially to check where they live. 

Javbw 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Marc Gemis]

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:

> On 06.10.2015 21:41, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > Sorry - no - All of them are *=destination.
>
> Don't be sorry. Think forward. Help find a name for the missing tag.
>

While this missing tag might be theoretically useful, I wonder how you car
navigation will benefit from it ?
Will it start by "Hallo Mary, you want to drive to X street, but there is a
"people living there and their visitors only access restriction and their
access restriction" ? Are you going to visit someone there ? Yes / No ?
No ? Ok I can bring you to street Y instead, but there you need to an
employee ID for Company Alpha ? Do you have that ? No, sorry, Street Z
then. But now you have to prove that you are going for a walk there ? Can
you ?
Or I can take you to Street A, if you let me scan and check a permission
from the city.

This seems a little bit too futuristic :-)

regards

m
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 23:11, John Willis wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Oct 6, 2015, at 8:48 PM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:
>>
>> So if "destination" excludes off-wanderers and sightseers, what tag do you
>> use when you need to include them?
> 
> Yes/permissive under general.
> 
> If I am free to come up park my car for any reason and wander about, that is 
> pretty damn permissive.

Permissive would also mean that we are allowed to drive thru, at least
according to the tag definition in the Wiki. We need to stick to those
definitions, there's too much data based on them.

> I may be wrong, but the signage you are describing is very interesting to me 
> because in general it doesn't exist in the US. Usually private residential 
> streets (not driveways) are still access=yes/permissive unless there is a 
> gate (I lived adjacent to one w/o a gate), and parking on busy streets/ 
> neighborhoods is done with permits - but the road itself is permissive. 

Indeed there are huge differences between our countries. When searching for
translations of legal terms, I stumbled upon pages like
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/12/no_through_traffic_signs_in_ne.html.
This case would be unthinkable here in Central Europe. All fields of life
are excessively regulated. There are laws and road signs for everything.
There are all kinds of restrictions on public roads as well as on privately
owned roads. Authorities are imaginative not only at complicating rules, but
also when it comes to fining people. In the given example, they would put up
a proper traffic sign, and police would punish every driver who ignores it.

> If there is some sign that says "residents and people with business with 
> residents only" - that sounds an awful lot like access=destination. 

Well, it may sound like it, but it's really different from the other kind of
destination traffic.

Let's take this example:
http://map.project-osrm.org/?z=14=47.801914%2C16.184020=47.788565%2C16.178441=47.805574%2C16.160095=en
Assume we want to go fishing at the brook (Johannesbach). We probably need
to pay for it. In that case, we are in business with the owners, so we are
allowed to drive directly to the fishing spot. But if fishing is free, or if
we just want to hike along the brook, we are not allowed to drive in. We
need to walk 2,35 km to reach the brook. Or we drive 8 km all around the
forest (as the routing engine suggests) and still have 1 km to walk to reach
the brook. In any case, we lose a lot of time, and we'll be physically
exhausted.

But if the traffic sign said "except for local traffic" or "except for
destinations in the wood", we could legally drive directly to the fishing
spot, no matter what we are doing there.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 21:41, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> Sorry - no - All of them are *=destination.

Don't be sorry. Think forward. Help find a name for the missing tag.

> If you include them? What would be the legal sign? I know
> of none. You can put up signs which say - "Redheads only on
> mondays" but thats nothing OSM could or should follow.

There are no redheads signs, because they would be discriminating.
There *are* signs for like "only on mondays", and there's an approved
tagging scheme for this:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions

> Simplification - make it a permissive/private ...

Or reduce all access tags to yes or no.
That's not where OSM is heading to.
Tagging is getting more and more fine-grained.

>> In Austria:
> 
>> Fahrverbot + Zusatztafel "Zufahrt gestattet"
>   motor_vehicle=customer/destination/permissive/private depending
>   on use case

What use case? Do you suggest tagging for the renderer?

>> Fahrverbot + Zusatztafel "ausgenommen Ziele in..."
>   Do you have pictures of something like this?

Don't you believe me? I know for sure that I saw signs with that wording,
but I certainly have no photo. So believe it or not.

You can find similar signs here:
http://wandertipp.at/andreasbaumgartner/2008/07/01/durchfahrtsverbot-in-leopoldsdorf-unglaublich-aber-wahr/

>> "Durchfahrt verboten"
>   motor_vehicle=destination or vehicle=destination - depends on
>   what is beeing ment. Might also be a access=private. Varys 
>   on location and usage.
>> "Durchgang verboten"
>   access=destination?

Fine. You see that *=destination has a distinctive meaning.

> You need to accept simplification

Yet again, you are arguing towards access=yes/no.

> - there is NO WAY in the world we can
> accurately a) tag all ways with any combination of blurp and make b) all
> data consumers "do the right thing". 

We *can* do (a), your'e just lacking motivation. You won't get us forward
with such a mindset.

I do not care about (b), as that's not a tagging issue.

> A lot of signs in the countryside are complicated but are only
> interesting for locals e.g. the farm 500m away. Why should i tag this

I will answer questions like this when the RFC is out. At the present stage,
I need suggestions for the tag name. Please get back on the topic.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 19:31, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>> So if "destination" excludes off-wanderers and sightseers, what tag do you
>> use when you need to include them?
> 
> Whats the possible signage which can induce that?

"no through traffic"
"no thru traffic"
"local traffic only"

In Austria:
Fahrverbot + Zusatztafel "Zufahrt gestattet"
Fahrverbot + Zusatztafel "ausgenommen Ziele in..."
"Durchfahrt verboten"
"Durchgang verboten"

The latter two are no traffic signs in terms of StVO, but they are valid
anyway due to other laws such as ABGB.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 07:15, Marc Gemis wrote:
> And (Flemish) Dutch "aangelanden (verkeer)". 
> 
> We also have the difference between 
> "uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer" = "except destination"
> "uitgezonderd aangelanden" = "except 'visitor'"
> 
> and I even saw
> 
> "uitgezonderd bewoners" = "except inhabitants" 
> 
> once on a street.

I'm glad to see that the tag I'm going to propose will be useful for at
least one other country.

You can then use:
uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer ... vehicle=destination
uitgezonderd aangelanden ... vehicle=
uitgezonderd bewoners ... vehicle=private

> Wonder whether a moving or delivery company would be
> allowed in the latter case. Or whether someone would try to enforce it in
> such case.

I don't know Belgian law, but it might be similar to the situation in
Austria where "ausgenommen Anrainer" only means residents, no
moving/delivering companies. That caused lots of problems, because residents
wanted things delivered to their homes. That's why "ausgenommen
Anrainerverkehr" was invented, and many "...Anrainer" signs have been
replaced by "...Anrainerverkehr" signs over the decades. This process will
surely continue.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Colin Smale]

 

Exactly my point - the actual definition of what is allowed and what is
forbidden is a whole lot more complex than a single word on a sign. 

Let's not forget that OSM is only a model of reality, which means it
will contain approximations of the truth. IMHO "access=destination" is
probably enough for the majority of usecases for motorised traffic, but
non-motorised traffic (foot, bicycle, horse etc) may need explicit
tagging. If one wants to be more specific, one has to reference the
traffic sign which indicates the access conditions/restrictions, with a
reference to the article of law with the full definition. 

//colin 

On 2015-10-06 09:04, Marc Gemis wrote: 

> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
>> And the Dutch/Flemish "plaatselijk verkeer" is better translated as "local 
>> traffic"; now what the hell is the (legal) definition of that?
> 
> Same as the Dutch bestemmingsverkeer I assume. Translated as "destination" in 
> OSM. 
> See 
> http://wegcode.be/index.php?option=com_content=article=100:art2=48:kb-01121975=48#uitgezonderd%20plaatselijk%20verkeer
>  for the Dutch text. 
> inhabitants, visitors, delivery, emergency, service + horses + bicycles + 
> foot. 
> 
> BTW, it seems that "Uitgezonderd aangelanden" is not mentioned in the law 
> (see http://www.gratisrijbewijsonline-forum.be/viewtopic.php?t=7359  (in 
> Dutch))  
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Colin Smale]

 

Instead of trying to translate the words on the signs, why look at what
the relevant laws say. There is only room on the sign for one or two
words, but in the laws which define the signing there will/may be more
detailed definitions of what is meant; these definitions will of course
be country-specific. 

What is the relationship between the German "Anlieger" and
"Anliegerverkehr"? Does the latter mean traffic "owned by a resident",
"going to/from a resident with explicit invitation", or what? If I am
thinking of buying a house on that road and want to take a look, is that
allowed? 

In NL there is "uitgezonderd bestemmingsverkeer" (except for destination
traffic) which sounds clear, but these days there is also "uitgezonderd
aantoonbare bestemming" (except traffic with demonstrable destination).
The latter is not defined (yet) in law, but I guess it is an attempt to
plug a hole in "bestemmingsverkeer" because it is not defined how you
have to justify being "destination traffic." 

Google Translate gives "feeder traffic" for Zubringerverkehr, but that
takes its meaning in a different direction than "destination". 

And the Dutch/Flemish "plaatselijk verkeer" is better translated as
"local traffic"; now what the hell is the (legal) definition of that? 

//colin 

On 2015-10-06 07:15, Marc Gemis wrote: 

> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Georg Feddern  wrote:
> 
>> As in
>> - german Anliegerverkehr
>> - swiss Zubringerverkehr
>> - austrian Anrainerverkehr
> 
> And (Flemish) Dutch "aangelanden (verkeer)".  
> 
> We also have the difference between  
> "uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer" = "except destination" 
> "uitgezonderd aangelanden" = "except 'visitor'" 
> 
> and I even saw 
> 
> "uitgezonderd bewoners" = "except inhabitants"  
> 
> once on a street. Wonder whether a moving or delivery company would be 
> allowed in the latter case. Or whether someone would try to enforce it in 
> such case. 
> 
> regards 
> 
> m 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 02:08, Georg Feddern wrote:
> Am 05.10.2015 um 12:01 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann:
>> Many people have been using (motor_)vehicle=destination for this, but that's
>> just wrong, because "destination" would mean that you are allowed to drive
>> in to take a walk or shoot photos.
> 
> Sorry, but your interpretation is wrong in my opinion - and "too literally
> translated".

As I already wrote in my reply to Simon, I do not know what translation you
are talking about. The sentence you cited does not contain a translation.

> "destination" can not be used as "you want to drive there" but as "you are
> allowed to drive there"

If I were allowed to drive there (without any condition), it would be
vehicle=yes.

>>   In exchange, "destination" would prohibt
>> residents from driving through - but they are actually allowed to do so.
> 
> Yes - but that's the very rare edge case Simon wrote about.
> Try to think about a router that would be able to handle this case - and its
> preconditions.

Thinking... Done.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Florian Lohoff]

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 08:54:09PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> On 06.10.2015 19:31, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> >> So if "destination" excludes off-wanderers and sightseers, what tag do you
> >> use when you need to include them?
> > 
> > Whats the possible signage which can induce that?
> 
> "no through traffic"
> "no thru traffic"
> "local traffic only"

Sorry - no - All of them are *=destination.

If you include them? What would be the legal sign? I know
of none. You can put up signs which say - "Redheads only on
mondays" but thats nothing OSM could or should follow.
Simplification - make it a permissive/private ...

> In Austria:

> Fahrverbot + Zusatztafel "Zufahrt gestattet"
motor_vehicle=customer/destination/permissive/private depending
on use case
> Fahrverbot + Zusatztafel "ausgenommen Ziele in..."
Do you have pictures of something like this?
> "Durchfahrt verboten"
motor_vehicle=destination or vehicle=destination - depends on
what is beeing ment. Might also be a access=private. Varys 
on location and usage.
> "Durchgang verboten"
access=destination?

> The latter two are no traffic signs in terms of StVO, but they are valid
> anyway due to other laws such as ABGB.

You need to accept simplification - there is NO WAY in the world we can
accurately a) tag all ways with any combination of blurp and make b) all
data consumers "do the right thing". 

A lot of signs in the countryside are complicated but are only
interesting for locals e.g. the farm 500m away. Why should i tag this
when then audience is about 2-3 People and there are 400 Programmers
which need to fix all data consumers?

When there is a sign saying - "No vehicle access accept for housenumber
12" you CANT put this in attributes. So the next valid tagging is
vehicle=no - People living in house number 12 might possibly know
they are allowed so there is no need to put this in the data.

My suggestion is you take some photographs with the mapillary app and
we talk through real not artifical examples.

I think the access stuff in OSM is very rich of its possibilities and we
today already have problems to interpret all those combinations and
we see "misbehaviour" in all routing apps concerning different
interpretation of tags - so we need to simplify.

Flo
PS: https://xkcd.com/927/
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
 We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[John Willis]

> On Oct 6, 2015, at 8:48 PM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:
> 
> So if "destination" excludes off-wanderers and sightseers, what tag do you
> use when you need to include them?

Yes/permissive under general.

If I am free to come up park my car for any reason and wander about, that is 
pretty damn permissive. 

I may be wrong, but the signage you are describing is very interesting to me 
because in general it doesn't exist in the US. Usually private residential 
streets (not driveways) are still access=yes/permissive unless there is a gate 
(I lived adjacent to one w/o a gate), and parking on busy streets/ 
neighborhoods is done with permits - but the road itself is permissive. 

They will have a "pass at your own risk" sign for legal purposes at the ends of 
the road.

If they don't want you to use a road as a shortcut through a neighborhood, the 
city puts a turn restriction on the intersection (either 24h or for a certain 
time of day), which the public road I lived on had, to keep people from 
bypassing an annoying stop sign on a trunk road where people have to wait in 
the morning. 

If there is some sign that says "residents and people with business with 
residents only" - that sounds an awful lot like access=destination. 

Javbw
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 08:47, Colin Smale wrote:
> Instead of trying to translate the words on the signs, why look at what the
> relevant laws say. There is only room on the sign for one or two words, but
> in the laws which define the signing there will/may be more detailed
> definitions of what is meant; these definitions will of course be
> country-specific.

Sadly enough, most people who participate in discussions do not even know
(or at least not fully understand) the laws in the own country, let alone in
foreign countries. That's why a list of country-specific equivalents cannot
be the target of a proposal. The proposal can only introduce a tag and its
definition, and it's up to the local communities to discuss what their
traffic signs mean and how they relate to the tag definitions.

> In NL there is "uitgezonderd bestemmingsverkeer" (except for destination
> traffic) which sounds clear, but these days there is also "uitgezonderd
> aantoonbare bestemming" (except traffic with demonstrable destination). The
> latter is not defined (yet) in law, but I guess it is an attempt to plug a
> hole in "bestemmingsverkeer" because it is not defined how you have to
> justify being "destination traffic."

The Austrian term "Anrainerverkehr" is not defined by a law either. But it
has been a topic in literature, official websites, court decisions, and
discussions in specific newsgroups and webforums. So there's now a common
understanding what the term means.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 09:04, Marc Gemis wrote:
> And the Dutch/Flemish "plaatselijk verkeer" is better translated as
> "local traffic"; now what the hell is the (legal) definition of that?
> 
> Same as the Dutch bestemmingsverkeer I assume.

I wouldn't assume that.

> inhabitants, visitors, delivery, emergency, service + horses + bicycles + 
> foot.

If we can include horse-and-cart in that list, it perfectly matches the new tag:
motor_vehicle=visitors (or whatever we name it)

horse=yes + bicycle=yes + foot=yes are certainly implied by the road type.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-06 8:47 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale :

> Instead of trying to translate the words on the signs, why look at what
> the relevant laws say. There is only room on the sign for one or two words,
> but in the laws which define the signing there will/may be more detailed
> definitions of what is meant; these definitions will of course be
> country-specific.
>
> What is the relationship between the German "Anlieger" and
> "Anliegerverkehr"? Does the latter mean traffic "owned by a resident",
> "going to/from a resident with explicit invitation", or what?
>


there are some cases that have led to legal clarifications by sentences. It
means you have to want to come into contact with someone living there or
operating her business there.



> If I am thinking of buying a house on that road and want to take a look,
> is that allowed?
>

If you have an appointment with the proprietor: yes, if you don't, no (my
interpretation). You are not allowed if you want to come into contact with
a house or a vending machine etc., you have to want to come into contact
with a person/business (but they don't have to be there, you may drive into
the area, find out they are not at home and continue to drive without even
leaving your car).


In Italy there are signs that say "except residents" or "residents only",
but these are quite different normally, because it actually isn't
sufficient to be a resident, you also have to apply for a permit once a
year (this permit will not be for you, but for the vehicle, i.e. has a
number plate on it), pay the fee, expose the permit behind the windscreen.
(These procedures and the details may vary from one municipality to
another). These situations I'm usually tagging as motor_vehicle=private
(because of the required explicit permit).

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Simon Poole]

People, sometimes creatively, put lots of stuff on signs that don't
necessarily correspond to the set of values that is actually supported
by law*. It frankly doesn't make sense to try and capture each fine
semantic difference (wit visitor vs. destination), particularly as  it
may simply be misguided to start with.

Your Anrainer vs. Anrainerverkehr example for AT doesn't seem to be any
different than the Anwohner/Anlieger difference in DE, which
semantically for routing purposes boils down to private/destination
(which I suspect most routers wouldn't actually differentiate in any case).

@Marc can you point to a reference that shows that "uitgezonderd
aangelanden" is anything else than creativity? Your relevant regulations
seem to only know about "plaatselijk verkeer"

Simon

* naturally there are often access restrictions issued by a court, but
they tend to have longer text inferencing the decision and detailing the
restriction.

Am 06.10.2015 um 09:16 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann:
> On 06.10.2015 07:15, Marc Gemis wrote:
>> And (Flemish) Dutch "aangelanden (verkeer)". 
>>
>> We also have the difference between 
>> "uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer" = "except destination"
>> "uitgezonderd aangelanden" = "except 'visitor'"
>>
>> and I even saw
>>
>> "uitgezonderd bewoners" = "except inhabitants" 
>>
>> once on a street.
> I'm glad to see that the tag I'm going to propose will be useful for at
> least one other country.
>
> You can then use:
> uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer ... vehicle=destination
> uitgezonderd aangelanden ... vehicle=
> uitgezonderd bewoners ... vehicle=private
>
>> Wonder whether a moving or delivery company would be
>> allowed in the latter case. Or whether someone would try to enforce it in
>> such case.
> I don't know Belgian law, but it might be similar to the situation in
> Austria where "ausgenommen Anrainer" only means residents, no
> moving/delivering companies. That caused lots of problems, because residents
> wanted things delivered to their homes. That's why "ausgenommen
> Anrainerverkehr" was invented, and many "...Anrainer" signs have been
> replaced by "...Anrainerverkehr" signs over the decades. This process will
> surely continue.
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-06 9:57 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann :

> Sadly enough, most people who participate in discussions do not even know
> (or at least not fully understand) the laws in the own country,
>



+1, the access=destination is likely an example, because it seems the
definition in the wiki doesn't fit perfectly on the German situation
either. There's also confusion about the term "Anlieger" (some think it is
coming from "ein Anliegen haben", others say its "an der Straße anliegend
sein"). Think about "Anliegerstaaten der Nordsee", are these states with a
wish for the North Sea?

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Colin Smale]

 

So to summarise, you are proposing a new value for access=*, which has
some overlap with "destination", "delivery" and "private" (and others),
whereby the distinction with the existing values can only be made clear
by refererring to legal texts? 

Whatever the conclusion, the new value has to be easy to use correctly,
and such subtle differences are just asking for problems... 

Maybe we can put a matrix in the wiki with the values down the left,
"traffic classes" across the top, and "yes/no" in the cells? 

Traffic classes would be something like: 

* actual residents 

* visitors to residents, with or without an appointment (including
delivery/contractor traffic) 

* visitors to residents, with pre-arranged appointment (including
delivery/contractor traffic) 

* residents of a side-road to the road in question (it may be the
intention that the side-roads are accessed by entering the road in
question from the other end) 

* visitors to the road itself, not to a resident (e.g. intending to park
the car and go for a walk) 

* anything else you can think of here? 

whereby the matrix would define the standard interpretation of the
values and any deviation must be explicity tagged. 

//colin 

On 2015-10-06 09:57, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: 

> On 06.10.2015 08:47, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
>> Instead of trying to translate the words on the signs, why look at what the
>> relevant laws say. There is only room on the sign for one or two words, but
>> in the laws which define the signing there will/may be more detailed
>> definitions of what is meant; these definitions will of course be
>> country-specific.
> 
> Sadly enough, most people who participate in discussions do not even know
> (or at least not fully understand) the laws in the own country, let alone in
> foreign countries. That's why a list of country-specific equivalents cannot
> be the target of a proposal. The proposal can only introduce a tag and its
> definition, and it's up to the local communities to discuss what their
> traffic signs mean and how they relate to the tag definitions.
> 
>> In NL there is "uitgezonderd bestemmingsverkeer" (except for destination
>> traffic) which sounds clear, but these days there is also "uitgezonderd
>> aantoonbare bestemming" (except traffic with demonstrable destination). The
>> latter is not defined (yet) in law, but I guess it is an attempt to plug a
>> hole in "bestemmingsverkeer" because it is not defined how you have to
>> justify being "destination traffic."
> 
> The Austrian term "Anrainerverkehr" is not defined by a law either. But it
> has been a topic in literature, official websites, court decisions, and
> discussions in specific newsgroups and webforums. So there's now a common
> understanding what the term means.
 ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-05 12:01 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann :

> The meaning is a superset of
> access=private/customers/delivery/agricultural/forestry. Everyone is
> permitted to use the feature (road) if - and only if - he is either a
> resident or owner of adjacent property or if he is aiming to get in contact
> or business with a resident or owner.
>


in Germany there's no limitation to residents or owners, it could also be a
tenant, business operator etc. without the necessity of "property" or
"residence" (= formally living there).



>
> So if you own the property beside the street, you are permitted to use the
> street.
> If you want to visit a resident for a talk, you are permitted.
> If you are delivering to a resident, you are permitted.
> Hotel guests are permitted.
>


would you be permitted if you wanted to ask for hotel pricing? Or room
availability?




>
>
> Many people have been using (motor_)vehicle=destination for this, but
> that's
> just wrong, because "destination" would mean that you are allowed to drive
> in to take a walk or shoot photos. In exchange, "destination" would prohibt
> residents from driving through - but they are actually allowed to do so.
>


IMHO we should change the wiki to make this more explicit, because the
German situation is similar, it isn't sufficient to want to go there (like
the wiki currently states), but you have to want to come in contact with
someone living there or operating his business there.



>
> I have been using (motor_)vehicle=delivery, because it's more permissive
> than private, and I always felt that delivery somewhat implies customers.
>


-1, delivery is quite different (e.g. would exclude residents that don't
"deliver"). I don't think that delivery implies something for customers.



>
>
> So we need a new tag.
>
> Maybe *=visitors?
> or *=guests (but this could make believe that deliverers are excluded)
> or *=contact (puzzling?)
> or *=contact_with_residents (too bulky?)
> or *=contact_with_abutters (same)
> or *=in_touch... ?
>
> What do you think?
>


"visitors" would exclude a lot of stuff, including residents. Also
"visitor" implies IMHO you have to stay. Is the postman a "visitor"? I'd
say no.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 10:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> would you be permitted if you wanted to ask for hotel pricing? Or room
> availability?

Yes. Asking means contact, and that's what it is about.

> Many people have been using (motor_)vehicle=destination for this, but 
> that's
> just wrong, because "destination" would mean that you are allowed to drive
> in to take a walk or shoot photos. In exchange, "destination" would 
> prohibt
> residents from driving through - but they are actually allowed to do so.
> 
> 
> IMHO we should change the wiki to make this more explicit, because the
> German situation is similar, it isn't sufficient to want to go there (like
> the wiki currently states), but you have to want to come in contact with
> someone living there or operating his business there.

I am ok with explicitely stating in the wiki that access=destination does
*not* require contact with residents.

> "visitors" would exclude a lot of stuff, including residents. Also "visitor"
> implies IMHO you have to stay. Is the postman a "visitor"? I'd say no.

I don't know either. This is why I started this thread. What value do you
suggest?

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-06 11:06 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann :

> > IMHO we should change the wiki to make this more explicit, because the
> > German situation is similar, it isn't sufficient to want to go there
> (like
> > the wiki currently states), but you have to want to come in contact with
> > someone living there or operating his business there.
>
> I am ok with explicitely stating in the wiki that access=destination does
> *not* require contact with residents.
>


I wouldn't do that, but I'd rather make it the opposite way (state that
destination does require contact). I'm not sure about the term "residents".
Are these signs only found in areas which are "purely residential" (i.e.
there are no offices if not inside residences and run by the resident, no
shops, haircutters, agencies, ...)? Otherwise I'd include something
referring to businesses. We should check if the currently described
definition in the wiki for "destination" is correctly describing the
situation for some place on Earth (some jurisdiction). If yes we have to
leave it as it is IMHO, and we'd have to retag a lot of stuff in Germany.
If not we could change the definition.



>
> > "visitors" would exclude a lot of stuff, including residents. Also
> "visitor"
> > implies IMHO you have to stay. Is the postman a "visitor"? I'd say no.
>
> I don't know either. This is why I started this thread. What value do you
> suggest?




I'd use "destination" (with the changed definition). We do need maybe
another value anyway for Austria, from what I read in WP there is a
distinction between "Anrainer frei" (who has his residence there) and
"Anrainerverkehr frei" (adds the people that want to come into contact with
residents).

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 10:45, Simon Poole wrote:
> Your Anrainer vs. Anrainerverkehr example for AT doesn't seem to be any
> different than the Anwohner/Anlieger difference in DE, which
> semantically for routing purposes boils down to private/destination
> (which I suspect most routers wouldn't actually differentiate in any case).

It's *not* destination, see my other posts.
To put it more clearly:
"destination" targets a location, while Anrainerverkehr targets people.
You can also see it like this:
"destination" is about where you go, while Anrainerverkehr is about what you
wanna do there.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Simon Poole]

Am 06.10.2015 um 11:29 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann:
> ...
> It's *not* destination, see my other posts.
> To put it more clearly:
> "destination" targets a location, while Anrainerverkehr targets people.
> You can also see it like this:
> "destination" is about where you go, while Anrainerverkehr is about what you
> wanna do there.
> ...
As already pointed out multiple times you are translating far too
literally.

The value "destination" works perfectly for the concept of "you are only
allowed to enter here for a limited number of activities that require
you to be physically at the specific destination/location" however that
is concretised in the relevant legislation.  



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Simon Poole]

Am 06.10.2015 um 12:02 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
>
> Yes, I didn't imply this. There's another possibility: split it into
> several tags, that can be combined to describe the actual situation
> (e.g. 2 or 3 rather than one tag). Each of these could have specific
> (global) meaning, and there would be no need for different meanings in
> different countries (like you suggest). Regarding the Austrian
> situation there seem to be at least 2 different similar restrictions
> with different meanings (Anrainer and Anrainerverkehr), so another
> values or key is likely needed anyway.
Anrainer seems to be clearly covered by private and Anrainerverkehr is
bullseye covered by the normal use of destination in DACH.

What is the third value supposed to cover?

Simon
 



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-06 10:45 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole :

> People, sometimes creatively, put lots of stuff on signs that don't
> necessarily correspond to the set of values that is actually supported
> by law*. It frankly doesn't make sense to try and capture each fine
> semantic difference (wit visitor vs. destination), particularly as  it
> may simply be misguided to start with.
>


I'm not convinced. IF there are subtle differences I find it desirable to
try to capture them. If there aren't (in jurisdiction), we don't have to
capture them, naturally.



>
> Your Anrainer vs. Anrainerverkehr example for AT doesn't seem to be any
> different than the Anwohner/Anlieger difference in DE
>


It seems that "Anwohner frei" (old sign, not used any more, but can still
be found) and "Anlieger frei" as additional signs for access restrictions
do have the same meaning (read this in different places in the web,
apparently it is written in BayObLG, DAR 81, 18; OLG Düsseldorf NZV 92, 85,
which I found only behind a pay wall and have not read in the original).
"Anwohner frei" as a parking restriction should be replaced by "Bewohner
frei"(?).



, which
> semantically for routing purposes boils down to private/destination
> (which I suspect most routers wouldn't actually differentiate in any case).
>


whether the routers do evaluate these rules specifically should not matter
to us. We should try to capture the reality, also in subtle details, so
that someone _could_ interpret the data precisely if he wanted to.

I agree that "destination" sh/could be the correct access restriction for
these cases, but it isn't well defined in the wiki at the moment.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Simon Poole]

Am 06.10.2015 um 11:15 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> ...
> whether the routers do evaluate these rules specifically should not
> matter to us. We should try to capture the reality, also in subtle
> details, so that someone _could_ interpret the data precisely if he
> wanted to.
> ...
The proper way to do that is to describe the specific
country/national/whatever detailed semantics of a specific value in a
separate table, just as we do it here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions
(in the case at hand naturally nobody is ever going to use it, but if it
makes people happy)

Doing the above allows us to limit the possible values to a manageable
set and allows our mappers to tag things without in-depth knowledge of
the the actual detailed regulations. Creating a new value for each
national variant is going to go nowhere.

Simon



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-10-06 11:31 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole :

> Doing the above allows us to limit the possible values to a manageable
> set and allows our mappers to tag things without in-depth knowledge of
> the the actual detailed regulations. Creating a new value for each
> national variant is going to go nowhere.
>


Yes, I didn't imply this. There's another possibility: split it into
several tags, that can be combined to describe the actual situation (e.g. 2
or 3 rather than one tag). Each of these could have specific (global)
meaning, and there would be no need for different meanings in different
countries (like you suggest). Regarding the Austrian situation there seem
to be at least 2 different similar restrictions with different meanings
(Anrainer and Anrainerverkehr), so another values or key is likely needed
anyway.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Florian Lohoff]

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 12:01:57PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> I intend to write a proposal for a new access=* value, but I don't know a
> reasonable tag name. So I'm asking you for suggestions.
> 
> We need the tag for Austrian road signs labelled "ausgenommen
> Anrainerverkehr" or "ausgenommen Anliegerverkehr", where "ausgenommen" means
> "excepted" and "Anrainerverkehr" or "Anliegerverkehr" is the word I am
> struggling to translate. These signs are mostly used in conjunction with [no
> vehicles] or [no motor vehicles] signs.

From my understanding this is exactly what destination is for. You are
allowed to enter as long are allowed as a resident or visitor of a
resident. The exact legal term is slightly different for different countries.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anlieger
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anrainer

"Die österreichische Straßenverkehrsordnung kennt den Anrainerbegriff
unter anderem in Verbindung mit Fahrverboten. Diese können mit Ausnahmen
für Anrainer oder den Anrainerverkehr versehen sein. Der Unterschied
liegt darin, dass im ersten Fall nur der Anrainer selbst über dieses
Straßenstück zufahren darf, im zweiten die Anrainer selbst und alle, die
zu den betroffenen Anrainern möchten. Somit besteht eine Ähnlichkeit mit
dem Begriff des Anliegers aus der deutschen Rechtsprechung."

For the non German speakers - It basically describes that there can
be a difference between "Anrainer" which is the resident on a street
and "Anrainerverkehr" which means residents and their visitors.
Germany does not have this distinction. The last one is the German
"Anlieger" and comparable to the "no thru traffic" and thus would
be mapped as e.g. "motor_vehicle=destination".

The "Anrainer" e.g. only residents would most likely translate to e.g.
"motor_vehicle=private" as its ONLY for a really small known group of people
and not for the public.

> There are similar signs in Germany and Switzerland, although there has been
> some debate whether the terms mean the same thing. So I am primarily
> considering Austrian jurisdiction by now. The Germans or Swiss can then
> decide whether they use the new access value or not.

In the end it doesnt matter what the exact legal term is. You tag it 
destination and the router could probably tell you are in austria and
there is a destination so i treat it slightly different.

But stepping back a little - All this detail is irrelevant for
routing/navigation application. In the end ALL access restrictions
whatever their meaning is have to be treated as "destination" - even
an access=private. When there is no other way the navigation
application leads you to the next point on roads to that destination.
If you are allowed to actually take the last 50m has to be decided by 
the driver itself. The navigaton application simply points you a
direction.


Flo
PS: Making "access=destination" really behave correctly in navigational 
apps is REALLY complicated. Just increasing the graphs costs on that
roads is plain wrong. Basically connected roads for destination
restrictions build a subgraph which has a one time cost of
entering it - not a per meter cost.
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
 We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Warin]

On 6/10/2015 7:32 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:

On 06.10.2015 09:04, Marc Gemis wrote:

 And the Dutch/Flemish "plaatselijk verkeer" is better translated as
 "local traffic"; now what the hell is the (legal) definition of that?

Same as the Dutch bestemmingsverkeer I assume.

I wouldn't assume that.


inhabitants, visitors, delivery, emergency, service + horses + bicycles + foot.

If we can include horse-and-cart in that list, it perfectly matches the new tag:
motor_vehicle=visitors (or whatever we name it)

horse=yes + bicycle=yes + foot=yes are certainly implied by the road type.



In some jurisdictions the legal definition of a  vehicle  includes 
horses, horse and cart and bicycles.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 06.10.2015 um 12:10 schrieb Simon Poole :
> 
> Anrainer seems to be clearly covered by private


"private" is "Only with permission of the owner on an individual basis"
this is kind of vague, but from what it says literally it clearly doesn't apply 
(because if it's a publicly owned road, the owner can neither permit other 
people than residents to  use the road, while residents cannot be forbidden to 
use it, if this would be the meaning of "individual basis" it could just as 
well be applicable to "delivery", Anrainerverkehr, ), there's not an individual 
permission but a general one restricted to certain conditions.

cheers 
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 11:09, Colin Smale wrote:
> So to summarise, you are proposing a new value for access=*, which has some
> overlap with "destination", "delivery" and "private" (and others),

There is no overlap with "destination", although many mappers mix it up.
Of course there is overlap with "delivery" and "private" as the new value
will be a superset to them.

> whereby
> the distinction with the existing values can only be made clear by
> refererring to legal texts?

No, that's exactly what I want to avoid. The tag definitions should be
concise, clear and comprehensive, and any traffic signs or legal texts
should go to an examples section at best. We better leave it over to local
communities to discuss those.

> Maybe we can put a matrix in the wiki with the values down the left,
> "traffic classes" across the top, and "yes/no" in the cells?
> 
> Traffic classes would be something like:
> 
> * actual residents
> 
> * visitors to residents, with or without an appointment (including
> delivery/contractor traffic)
> 
> * visitors to residents, with pre-arranged appointment (including
> delivery/contractor traffic)
> 
> * residents of a side-road to the road in question (it may be the intention
> that the side-roads are accessed by entering the road in question from the
> other end)

This is another dimension, so the matrix would become 3-dimensional.

> * visitors to the road itself, not to a resident (e.g. intending to park the
> car and go for a walk)
>  
> 
> * anything else you can think of here?

In order to get the "designated" and "use_sidepath" values in, we'd need to
add a distinction whether the feature is designated, or whether a designated
sidepath is present. That adds one more dimension to the matrix. For
"discouraged" we'd need yet another dimension. So we can hardly get all
values in one matrix. I would prefer a tree structure, similar to how the
keys are documented at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation. Of
course we can do both: a tree for all values, and a matrix for "difficult"
values.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 11:29, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> I wouldn't do that, but I'd rather make it the opposite way (state that
> destination does require contact).

That would change the meaning of the tag, and how would you tag "Zufahrt
gestattet" (or "Durchfahrt verboten" or "ausgenommen Ziele in ...") then?
This does not require contact.

> I'm not sure about the term "residents".
> Are these signs only found in areas which are "purely residential" (i.e.
> there are no offices if not inside residences and run by the resident, no
> shops, haircutters, agencies, ...)? Otherwise I'd include something
> referring to businesses.

Businesses are included, see my initial post.

> We should check if the currently described
> definition in the wiki for "destination" is correctly describing the
> situation for some place on Earth (some jurisdiction).

Destination is destination, the meaning of this word is obvious, and this
does not depend on some place on Earth.

> If yes we have to
> leave it as it is IMHO, and we'd have to retag a lot of stuff in Germany.

That's the problem of the Germans, and it's their own fault. I corrected the
mistranslation in the German wiki multiple times, and explained it to them
numerous times, to no avail.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 11:58, Simon Poole wrote:
> Am 06.10.2015 um 11:29 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann:
>> ...
>> It's *not* destination, see my other posts.
>> To put it more clearly:
>> "destination" targets a location, while Anrainerverkehr targets people.
>> You can also see it like this:
>> "destination" is about where you go, while Anrainerverkehr is about what you
>> wanna do there.
>> ...
> As already pointed out multiple times you are translating far too
> literally.

As already pointed out multiple times, you still owe me an explanation what
translation you are talking about.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[johnw]

> On Oct 5, 2015, at 7:01 PM, Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:
> 
> Maybe *=visitors?
> or *=guests (but this could make believe that deliverers are excluded)
> or *=contact (puzzling?)
> or *=contact_with_residents (too bulky?)
> or *=contact_with_abutters (same)
> or *=in_touch... ?


Guests sounds way too much like customers. Customers of hotels are referred to 
as guests. 

Contact (to me) sounds confusing compared to contact=* key

I would use something a little odd sounding like transitors or something, 
though that sounds like homeless people or electronics.

visitors is also really close to guests and customers, so I wouldn’t use it 
either. 

ah!

Locals! people who live there. delivery people and visitors certainly are not 
locals, so.. 

what word implies locals + delivery + customers? But not people just um.. 
wandering about?

I can’t think of one. I don't’ think there is one. 

Destination is very good, because it implies people who are going to a 
destination on that street/area. not free to roam around, not free to park and 
wander off. 

=Destination is for people *visiting* the destination the road services. it 
doesn’t matter the purpose - as long as their destination is one of the 
residences. Which excludes sightseers and shortcut-takers. 


There’s no way to find a word that means all those different groups, for so 
many different purposes - so define it by their action - “Destination” . 

javbw___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 12:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am 06.10.2015 um 12:10 schrieb Simon Poole
>> Anrainer seems to be clearly covered by private

Correct.

> "private" is "Only with permission of the owner on an individual basis"
> this is kind of vague, but from what it says literally it clearly doesn't 
> apply (because if it's a publicly owned road, the owner can neither permit 
> other people than residents to  use the road, while residents cannot be 
> forbidden to use it,

The owner (i.e. the commune) can extend or revoke the permission by
replacing the signs whenever they like.

> if this would be the meaning of "individual basis" it could just as well be 
> applicable to "delivery", Anrainerverkehr, ), there's not an individual 
> permission but a general one restricted to certain conditions.

The right is granted to registered residents, who are a strictly defined set
of individuals. Deliverers are not a strictly defined set of individuals.
Each of the 8 billion people on Earth can deliver something.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 06.10.2015 13:06, johnw wrote:
> Destination is very good, because it implies people who are going to a
> destination on that street/area. not free to roam around, not free to park
> and wander off. 
> 
> =Destination is for people *visiting* the destination the road services. it
> doesn’t matter the purpose - as long as their destination is one of the
> residences. Which excludes sightseers and shortcut-takers. 

So if "destination" excludes off-wanderers and sightseers, what tag do you
use when you need to include them?

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Florian Lohoff]

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 01:48:27PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> On 06.10.2015 13:06, johnw wrote:
> > Destination is very good, because it implies people who are going to a
> > destination on that street/area. not free to roam around, not free to park
> > and wander off. 
> > 
> > =Destination is for people *visiting* the destination the road services. it
> > doesn’t matter the purpose - as long as their destination is one of the
> > residences. Which excludes sightseers and shortcut-takers. 
> 
> So if "destination" excludes off-wanderers and sightseers, what tag do you
> use when you need to include them?

Whats the possible signage which can induce that?

In Germany we have the StVO which has Zeichen 1020-* which are the
exceptions and there nothing like that. It doesnt even make sense - When
you include them - its the public which is allowed to enter. Then there
is no restriction.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildtafel_der_Verkehrszeichen_in_der_Bundesrepublik_Deutschland_seit_2013

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de
 We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Marc Gemis]

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Georg Feddern  wrote:

> As in
> - german Anliegerverkehr
> - swiss Zubringerverkehr
> - austrian Anrainerverkehr
>

And (Flemish) Dutch "aangelanden (verkeer)".

We also have the difference between
"uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer" = "except destination"
"uitgezonderd aangelanden" = "except 'visitor'"

and I even saw

"uitgezonderd bewoners" = "except inhabitants"

once on a street. Wonder whether a moving or delivery company would be
allowed in the latter case. Or whether someone would try to enforce it in
such case.

regards

m
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Simon Poole]

Am 05.10.2015 um 12:01 schrieb Friedrich Volkmann:
> ...
> Many people have been using (motor_)vehicle=destination for this, but that's
> just wrong, because "destination" would mean that you are allowed to drive
> in to take a walk or shoot photos. In exchange, "destination" would prohibt
> residents from driving through - but they are actually allowed to do so.
> ...
IMHO you are translating far far too literally and trying to infer a
legal meaning from that translation creating an unnecessary and likely
make-believe edge case.

Simon




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Volker Schmidt]

Reading your post, I would think that vehicle=destination is exactly what
you are looking for. If the restriction applies only to motor vehicles,
than use motor_vehicle=destination.
The wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access explicitly mentions
the German "Anlieger frei" and to the best of my knowledge that is
equivalent to the Austrian German "Anrainer"

Volker
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

I intend to write a proposal for a new access=* value, but I don't know a
reasonable tag name. So I'm asking you for suggestions.

We need the tag for Austrian road signs labelled "ausgenommen
Anrainerverkehr" or "ausgenommen Anliegerverkehr", where "ausgenommen" means
"excepted" and "Anrainerverkehr" or "Anliegerverkehr" is the word I am
struggling to translate. These signs are mostly used in conjunction with [no
vehicles] or [no motor vehicles] signs.

There are similar signs in Germany and Switzerland, although there has been
some debate whether the terms mean the same thing. So I am primarily
considering Austrian jurisdiction by now. The Germans or Swiss can then
decide whether they use the new access value or not.

The meaning is a superset of
access=private/customers/delivery/agricultural/forestry. Everyone is
permitted to use the feature (road) if - and only if - he is either a
resident or owner of adjacent property or if he is aiming to get in contact
or business with a resident or owner.

So if you own the property beside the street, you are permitted to use the
street.
If you want to visit a resident for a talk, you are permitted.
If you are delivering to a resident, you are permitted.
Hotel guests are permitted.
If you want to visit a shop, you are permitted.
If you want to visit someone who turns out to be not at home, you are
permitted anyway because you could not know.

But you are *not* permitted to drive in if you just want to park your car
there and take a walk.
Or if you are intending to drive through without being a resident/owner.
Or if you want to shoot photos of the buildings, without visiting them.
Or if you do some mapping for OSM.

Many people have been using (motor_)vehicle=destination for this, but that's
just wrong, because "destination" would mean that you are allowed to drive
in to take a walk or shoot photos. In exchange, "destination" would prohibt
residents from driving through - but they are actually allowed to do so.

I have been using (motor_)vehicle=delivery, because it's more permissive
than private, and I always felt that delivery somewhat implies customers.
But it's not fully correct either, because pedestrian areas exist where
deliverers are permitted to drive in, while customers are not.

So we need a new tag.

Maybe *=visitors?
or *=guests (but this could make believe that deliverers are excluded)
or *=contact (puzzling?)
or *=contact_with_residents (too bulky?)
or *=contact_with_abutters (same)
or *=in_touch... ?

What do you think?

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Kieron Thwaites]

I'm of the opinion that "visitors" is indeed the best translation to what you 
have described.

--K

-Original Message-
From: Friedrich Volkmann [mailto:b...@volki.at]
Sent: Monday, 05 October 2015 12:02
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org>
Subject: [Tagging] new access value

I intend to write a proposal for a new access=* value, but I don't know a 
reasonable tag name. So I'm asking you for suggestions.

We need the tag for Austrian road signs labelled "ausgenommen Anrainerverkehr" 
or "ausgenommen Anliegerverkehr", where "ausgenommen" means "excepted" and 
"Anrainerverkehr" or "Anliegerverkehr" is the word I am struggling to 
translate. These signs are mostly used in conjunction with [no vehicles] or 
[no motor vehicles] signs.

There are similar signs in Germany and Switzerland, although there has been 
some debate whether the terms mean the same thing. So I am primarily 
considering Austrian jurisdiction by now. The Germans or Swiss can then decide 
whether they use the new access value or not.

The meaning is a superset of
access=private/customers/delivery/agricultural/forestry. Everyone is permitted 
to use the feature (road) if - and only if - he is either a resident or owner 
of adjacent property or if he is aiming to get in contact or business with a 
resident or owner.

So if you own the property beside the street, you are permitted to use the 
street.
If you want to visit a resident for a talk, you are permitted.
If you are delivering to a resident, you are permitted.
Hotel guests are permitted.
If you want to visit a shop, you are permitted.
If you want to visit someone who turns out to be not at home, you are 
permitted anyway because you could not know.

But you are *not* permitted to drive in if you just want to park your car 
there and take a walk.
Or if you are intending to drive through without being a resident/owner.
Or if you want to shoot photos of the buildings, without visiting them.
Or if you do some mapping for OSM.

Many people have been using (motor_)vehicle=destination for this, but that's 
just wrong, because "destination" would mean that you are allowed to drive in 
to take a walk or shoot photos. In exchange, "destination" would prohibt 
residents from driving through - but they are actually allowed to do so.

I have been using (motor_)vehicle=delivery, because it's more permissive than 
private, and I always felt that delivery somewhat implies customers.
But it's not fully correct either, because pedestrian areas exist where 
deliverers are permitted to drive in, while customers are not.

So we need a new tag.

Maybe *=visitors?
or *=guests (but this could make believe that deliverers are excluded) or 
*=contact (puzzling?) or *=contact_with_residents (too bulky?) or 
*=contact_with_abutters (same) or *=in_touch... ?

What do you think?

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Simon Poole]

Am 05.10.2015 um 14:56 schrieb Volker Schmidt:
> ..
> The wiki http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access explicitly
> mentions the German "Anlieger frei" and to the best of my knowledge
> that is equivalent to the Austrian German "Anrainer"
And to the Swiss Zubringerdienst ...



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Simon Poole]

Am 05.10.2015 um 16:36 schrieb Richard:
> ... just trying to imagine the poor router trying to decide how to
> route such an area.

While some of the OSM specific routers haven't implemented it at this
point in time, in general routers have no issue at all with it. The
rough US-equivalent from a routing pov is "No Thru Traffic" (to avoid
lengthy discussions about the exact semantics, note that I wrote
"routing pov").

Simon



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Richard]

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 12:01:57PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> I intend to write a proposal for a new access=* value, but I don't know a
> reasonable tag name. So I'm asking you for suggestions.
> 
> We need the tag for Austrian road signs labelled "ausgenommen
> Anrainerverkehr" or "ausgenommen Anliegerverkehr", where "ausgenommen" means
> "excepted" and "Anrainerverkehr" or "Anliegerverkehr" is the word I am
> struggling to translate. These signs are mostly used in conjunction with [no
> vehicles] or [no motor vehicles] signs.
> 
> There are similar signs in Germany and Switzerland, although there has been
> some debate whether the terms mean the same thing. So I am primarily
> considering Austrian jurisdiction by now. The Germans or Swiss can then
> decide whether they use the new access value or not.
> 
> The meaning is a superset of
> access=private/customers/delivery/agricultural/forestry. Everyone is
> permitted to use the feature (road) if - and only if - he is either a
> resident or owner of adjacent property or if he is aiming to get in contact
> or business with a resident or owner.
> 
> So if you own the property beside the street, you are permitted to use the
> street.
> If you want to visit a resident for a talk, you are permitted.
> If you are delivering to a resident, you are permitted.
> Hotel guests are permitted.
> If you want to visit a shop, you are permitted.
> If you want to visit someone who turns out to be not at home, you are
> permitted anyway because you could not know.
> 
> But you are *not* permitted to drive in if you just want to park your car
> there and take a walk.
> Or if you are intending to drive through without being a resident/owner.
> Or if you want to shoot photos of the buildings, without visiting them.
> Or if you do some mapping for OSM.

The information about the traffic sign is useful, so it should be mapped as
such. The permission is not useful in my opinion ... just trying to imagine 
the poor router trying to decide how to route such an area.

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] new access value

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 05.10.2015 14:19, Simon Poole wrote:
> IMHO you are translating far far too literally and trying to infer a legal
> meaning from that translation creating an unnecessary and likely
> make-believe edge case.

I don't know what translation you are talking about, but this has been
exhaustingly discussed in the users:Germany webforum, and we'll be able to
discuss it again after the RFC, so please leave it aside by now and let's
focus on the new tag name.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging