Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Sebastian Spiess]

Thanks Andrew,
I have updated the street accordingly. See
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/174303541/history

On 11/11/19 7:24 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> In an effort to try to document the outcome of this discussion, I've
> updated 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Local_Traffic_Only
>  though
> if any one still feels this isn't the best way to tag this feature,
> please speak up.
>
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 10:26, Ian Sergeant  > wrote:
>
> What does "official" mean?  It's official, in that the signs are
> placed by the local council.  However they are not enforceable,
> because no law (regulation, etc) gives them a legal meaning.
>
> There is no definitive list of street signs that are advisory vs
> enforceable.  But the RMS has a partial list on their website, and
> the definitive is the Australian Road Rules (as in various state
> legislation).
>
> Councils use them to discourage local streets for through use. 
> They advise drivers that they aren't a main road - and they may
> have traffic calming, etc on them and be otherwise unsuited in
> design for through use.  They aren't used at all in many (most?)
> council areas.
>
> In some cases, they may also have a reduced speed-limit on the
> same sign.  That would be enforceable.
>
> It's pretty low value information to capture in OSM.  But the
> signs exist, so we can capture them - but a access restriction
> would be inappropriate.  I've said before I agree with Andrew's
> proposed tagging for discouraged access.
>
> Ian.
>
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 06:38, Sebastian S.  > wrote:
>
> So the sign is put up by the council. Is it not an official sign?
>
> Could someone elaborate on the legal side mentioned here. E.g.
> is there catalogue of street signs in the road rules and this
> one is not among them?
>
> Are people confusing lax enforcement of the sign with it
> having no legal meaning?
>
> On 9 November 2019 11:37:49 am AEDT, Andrew Harvey
> mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 02:24, Mateusz Konieczny
> mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Why it would be irrelevant?
>
>
> access tag family is for legal access (with some space
> for officially discouraged access),
> access=destination is for "transit is illegal", not
> "local residents dislike transit traffic".
>
> OSM is not a place to add a nonexisting ban on transit
> traffic
>
>
> Yeah realised this later, see my other post in this thread
> at 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-November/013188.html,
> which I suggested motor_vehicle:advisory=destination to
> tag a suggested or advised but maybe not legally
> enforceable destination only restriction.
>
> On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 01:55, Mateusz Konieczny
> mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Is it "local traffic only" as in "resident only" or
> "no transit"?
>
> Is permission required to enter this area?
>
> AFAIK there is no tagging scheme for distinguishing
> "only with permission of
> homeowner" and "available to all residents of closed
> community".
>
>
> It just means this road is indented to be used if you're
> traveling to somewhere along this road, but not if you're
> just driving through as a shortcut.
>
> It's still public land, not private property. 
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Luke Stewart]

The "local traffic only" sign is not present in the QLD, NSW, or Australian
Road Rules legislation, nor is an explanation of what it means. Councils
don't have the power to restrict the use of a road to "local traffic" under
the Local Government Act, at least as far as I can understand.

http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/vic/consol_act/lga1989182/sch10.html

http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/vic/consol_act/lga1989182/sch11.html

It's not on the page of Road Signs in Australia, although I acknowledge it
may be incomplete.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Australia

It seems to me it's similar to a "No Through Road" sign—merely advisory.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Michael James]

As I have said in other forums

Websites are not the law, unless it is the legislation website.

From: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au 
Sent: Tuesday, 12 November 2019 2:59 AM
To: 'OSM Australian Talk List' 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

Well, the website of the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 
website specifically lists “Local Traffic Only” as an official state level sign.

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/signs/instruction (see section “Local 
traffic restriction signs”)


From: Michael James mailto:mich...@techdrive.com.au>>
Sent: Monday, 11 November 2019 09:20
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

They existed prior to 1997 and were removed when the national rules were 
introduced that year.

It’s likely that local councils are unaware that they no longer have any legal 
purpose.

From: Sebastian S. mailto:mapp...@consebt.de>>
Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2019 9:50 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org<mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>; Andrew Harvey 
mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>>; Mateusz Konieczny 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org>>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

So the sign is put up by the council. Is it not an official sign?

Could someone elaborate on the legal side mentioned here. E.g. is there 
catalogue of street signs in the road rules and this one is not among them?

Are people confusing lax enforcement of the sign with it having no legal 
meaning?
On 9 November 2019 11:37:49 am AEDT, Andrew Harvey 
mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 02:24, Mateusz Konieczny 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:
Why it would be irrelevant?

access tag family is for legal access (with some space for officially 
discouraged access),
access=destination is for "transit is illegal", not "local residents dislike 
transit traffic".

OSM is not a place to add a nonexisting ban on transit traffic

Yeah realised this later, see my other post in this thread at 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-November/013188.html, 
which I suggested motor_vehicle:advisory=destination to tag a suggested or 
advised but maybe not legally enforceable destination only restriction.

On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 01:55, Mateusz Konieczny 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:
Is it "local traffic only" as in "resident only" or "no transit"?

Is permission required to enter this area?

AFAIK there is no tagging scheme for distinguishing "only with permission of
homeowner" and "available to all residents of closed community".

It just means this road is indented to be used if you're traveling to somewhere 
along this road, but not if you're just driving through as a shortcut.

It's still public land, not private property.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[osm.talk-au]

Well, the website of the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads 
website specifically lists “Local Traffic Only” as an official state level sign.

 

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/signs/instruction (see section “Local 
traffic restriction signs”)

 

 

From: Michael James  
Sent: Monday, 11 November 2019 09:20
To: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

 

They existed prior to 1997 and were removed when the national rules were 
introduced that year.

 

It’s likely that local councils are unaware that they no longer have any legal 
purpose.

 

From: Sebastian S. mailto:mapp...@consebt.de> > 
Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2019 9:50 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> ; Andrew 
Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> >; Mateusz 
Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com> >
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> >
Subject: Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

 

So the sign is put up by the council. Is it not an official sign?

Could someone elaborate on the legal side mentioned here. E.g. is there 
catalogue of street signs in the road rules and this one is not among them?

Are people confusing lax enforcement of the sign with it having no legal 
meaning?

On 9 November 2019 11:37:49 am AEDT, Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com> > wrote:

On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 02:24, Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com> > wrote:

Why it would be irrelevant?

 

access tag family is for legal access (with some space for officially 
discouraged access),

access=destination is for "transit is illegal", not "local residents dislike 
transit traffic".

 

OSM is not a place to add a nonexisting ban on transit traffic

 

Yeah realised this later, see my other post in this thread at 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-November/013188.html, 
which I suggested motor_vehicle:advisory=destination to tag a suggested or 
advised but maybe not legally enforceable destination only restriction.

 

On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 01:55, Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com> > wrote:

Is it "local traffic only" as in "resident only" or "no transit"?

 

Is permission required to enter this area?

 

AFAIK there is no tagging scheme for distinguishing "only with permission of

homeowner" and "available to all residents of closed community".

 

It just means this road is indented to be used if you're traveling to somewhere 
along this road, but not if you're just driving through as a shortcut.

 

It's still public land, not private property. 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Warin]

On 09/11/19 01:51, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

Is it "local traffic only" as in "resident only" or "no transit"?

Is permission required to enter this area?

No permission required.
Residents, their visitors, delivery vehicle going to the residents would 
all be allowed.


From where I have seen then they are to discourage transit traffic.

A search on austlit may give some results?



AFAIK there is no tagging scheme for distinguishing "only with 
permission of

homeowner" and "available to all residents of closed community".

7 Nov 2019, 12:21 by mapp...@consebt.de :

Hello List,

how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one?
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw

Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states
"...Note that "access only for residents" is private..."

Would this not break navigation in apps etc?

___



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Andrew Harvey]

In an effort to try to document the outcome of this discussion, I've
updated
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Local_Traffic_Only
though
if any one still feels this isn't the best way to tag this feature, please
speak up.

On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 10:26, Ian Sergeant  wrote:

> What does "official" mean?  It's official, in that the signs are placed by
> the local council.  However they are not enforceable, because no law
> (regulation, etc) gives them a legal meaning.
>
> There is no definitive list of street signs that are advisory vs
> enforceable.  But the RMS has a partial list on their website, and the
> definitive is the Australian Road Rules (as in various state legislation).
>
> Councils use them to discourage local streets for through use.  They
> advise drivers that they aren't a main road - and they may have traffic
> calming, etc on them and be otherwise unsuited in design for through use.
> They aren't used at all in many (most?) council areas.
>
> In some cases, they may also have a reduced speed-limit on the same sign.
> That would be enforceable.
>
> It's pretty low value information to capture in OSM.  But the signs exist,
> so we can capture them - but a access restriction would be inappropriate.
> I've said before I agree with Andrew's proposed tagging for discouraged
> access.
>
> Ian.
>
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 06:38, Sebastian S.  wrote:
>
>> So the sign is put up by the council. Is it not an official sign?
>>
>> Could someone elaborate on the legal side mentioned here. E.g. is there
>> catalogue of street signs in the road rules and this one is not among them?
>>
>> Are people confusing lax enforcement of the sign with it having no legal
>> meaning?
>>
>> On 9 November 2019 11:37:49 am AEDT, Andrew Harvey <
>> andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 02:24, Mateusz Konieczny 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Why it would be irrelevant?

>>>
 access tag family is for legal access (with some space for officially
 discouraged access),
 access=destination is for "transit is illegal", not "local residents
 dislike transit traffic".

 OSM is not a place to add a nonexisting ban on transit traffic

>>>
>>> Yeah realised this later, see my other post in this thread at
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-November/013188.html,
>>> which I suggested motor_vehicle:advisory=destination to tag a suggested or
>>> advised but maybe not legally enforceable destination only restriction.
>>>
>>> On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 01:55, Mateusz Konieczny 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Is it "local traffic only" as in "resident only" or "no transit"?

 Is permission required to enter this area?

 AFAIK there is no tagging scheme for distinguishing "only with
 permission of
 homeowner" and "available to all residents of closed community".

>>>
>>> It just means this road is indented to be used if you're traveling to
>>> somewhere along this road, but not if you're just driving through as a
>>> shortcut.
>>>
>>> It's still public land, not private property.
>>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Ian Sergeant]

What does "official" mean?  It's official, in that the signs are placed by
the local council.  However they are not enforceable, because no law
(regulation, etc) gives them a legal meaning.

There is no definitive list of street signs that are advisory vs
enforceable.  But the RMS has a partial list on their website, and the
definitive is the Australian Road Rules (as in various state legislation).

Councils use them to discourage local streets for through use.  They advise
drivers that they aren't a main road - and they may have traffic calming,
etc on them and be otherwise unsuited in design for through use.  They
aren't used at all in many (most?) council areas.

In some cases, they may also have a reduced speed-limit on the same sign.
That would be enforceable.

It's pretty low value information to capture in OSM.  But the signs exist,
so we can capture them - but a access restriction would be inappropriate.
I've said before I agree with Andrew's proposed tagging for discouraged
access.

Ian.

On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 06:38, Sebastian S.  wrote:

> So the sign is put up by the council. Is it not an official sign?
>
> Could someone elaborate on the legal side mentioned here. E.g. is there
> catalogue of street signs in the road rules and this one is not among them?
>
> Are people confusing lax enforcement of the sign with it having no legal
> meaning?
>
> On 9 November 2019 11:37:49 am AEDT, Andrew Harvey <
> andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 02:24, Mateusz Konieczny 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Why it would be irrelevant?
>>>
>>
>>> access tag family is for legal access (with some space for officially
>>> discouraged access),
>>> access=destination is for "transit is illegal", not "local residents
>>> dislike transit traffic".
>>>
>>> OSM is not a place to add a nonexisting ban on transit traffic
>>>
>>
>> Yeah realised this later, see my other post in this thread at
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-November/013188.html,
>> which I suggested motor_vehicle:advisory=destination to tag a suggested or
>> advised but maybe not legally enforceable destination only restriction.
>>
>> On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 01:55, Mateusz Konieczny 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Is it "local traffic only" as in "resident only" or "no transit"?
>>>
>>> Is permission required to enter this area?
>>>
>>> AFAIK there is no tagging scheme for distinguishing "only with
>>> permission of
>>> homeowner" and "available to all residents of closed community".
>>>
>>
>> It just means this road is indented to be used if you're traveling to
>> somewhere along this road, but not if you're just driving through as a
>> shortcut.
>>
>> It's still public land, not private property.
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Michael James]

They existed prior to 1997 and were removed when the national rules were 
introduced that year.

It’s likely that local councils are unaware that they no longer have any legal 
purpose.

From: Sebastian S. 
Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2019 9:50 PM
To: talk-au@openstreetmap.org; Andrew Harvey ; 
Mateusz Konieczny 
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

So the sign is put up by the council. Is it not an official sign?

Could someone elaborate on the legal side mentioned here. E.g. is there 
catalogue of street signs in the road rules and this one is not among them?

Are people confusing lax enforcement of the sign with it having no legal 
meaning?
On 9 November 2019 11:37:49 am AEDT, Andrew Harvey 
mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 02:24, Mateusz Konieczny 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:
Why it would be irrelevant?

access tag family is for legal access (with some space for officially 
discouraged access),
access=destination is for "transit is illegal", not "local residents dislike 
transit traffic".

OSM is not a place to add a nonexisting ban on transit traffic

Yeah realised this later, see my other post in this thread at 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-November/013188.html, 
which I suggested motor_vehicle:advisory=destination to tag a suggested or 
advised but maybe not legally enforceable destination only restriction.

On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 01:55, Mateusz Konieczny 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:
Is it "local traffic only" as in "resident only" or "no transit"?

Is permission required to enter this area?

AFAIK there is no tagging scheme for distinguishing "only with permission of
homeowner" and "available to all residents of closed community".

It just means this road is indented to be used if you're traveling to somewhere 
along this road, but not if you're just driving through as a shortcut.

It's still public land, not private property.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Sebastian S.]

So the sign is put up by the council. Is it not an official sign?

Could someone elaborate on the legal side mentioned here. E.g. is there 
catalogue of street signs in the road rules and this one is not among them?

Are people confusing lax enforcement of the sign with it having no legal 
meaning?

On 9 November 2019 11:37:49 am AEDT, Andrew Harvey  
wrote:
>On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 02:24, Mateusz Konieczny
>
>wrote:
>
>> Why it would be irrelevant?
>>
>
>> access tag family is for legal access (with some space for officially
>> discouraged access),
>> access=destination is for "transit is illegal", not "local residents
>> dislike transit traffic".
>>
>> OSM is not a place to add a nonexisting ban on transit traffic
>>
>
>Yeah realised this later, see my other post in this thread at
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-November/013188.html,
>which I suggested motor_vehicle:advisory=destination to tag a suggested
>or
>advised but maybe not legally enforceable destination only restriction.
>
>On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 01:55, Mateusz Konieczny
>
>wrote:
>
>> Is it "local traffic only" as in "resident only" or "no transit"?
>>
>> Is permission required to enter this area?
>>
>> AFAIK there is no tagging scheme for distinguishing "only with
>permission
>> of
>> homeowner" and "available to all residents of closed community".
>>
>
>It just means this road is indented to be used if you're traveling to
>somewhere along this road, but not if you're just driving through as a
>shortcut.
>
>It's still public land, not private property.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 02:24, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> Why it would be irrelevant?
>

> access tag family is for legal access (with some space for officially
> discouraged access),
> access=destination is for "transit is illegal", not "local residents
> dislike transit traffic".
>
> OSM is not a place to add a nonexisting ban on transit traffic
>

Yeah realised this later, see my other post in this thread at
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-November/013188.html,
which I suggested motor_vehicle:advisory=destination to tag a suggested or
advised but maybe not legally enforceable destination only restriction.

On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 01:55, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> Is it "local traffic only" as in "resident only" or "no transit"?
>
> Is permission required to enter this area?
>
> AFAIK there is no tagging scheme for distinguishing "only with permission
> of
> homeowner" and "available to all residents of closed community".
>

It just means this road is indented to be used if you're traveling to
somewhere along this road, but not if you're just driving through as a
shortcut.

It's still public land, not private property.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Why it would be irrelevant?

access tag family is for legal access (with some space for officially 
discouraged access),
access=destination is for "transit is illegal", not "local residents dislike 
transit traffic".

OSM is not a place to add a nonexisting ban on transit traffic

8 Nov 2019, 00:24 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:

> The fact that they are not legally enforceable I think is irrelevant, after 
> all you can always tell your router to ignore access=destination if you like. 
> Rather this tagging accurately reflects the officially signposted 
> "recommendation".
>
> I agree they are targeted at vehicles, so that's why I'd recommend 
> motor_vehicle=destination rather than a blanket access=destination.
>
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 10:05, Ian Sergeant <> inas66+...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
>
>> I disagree with this one
>>
>> 1. I'm pretty sure they are not intended to have any effect to cyclists and 
>> pedestrians.  Who are generally encouraged to use these kinds of streets.  I 
>> wouldn't like to think we're putting access restrictions that are going to 
>> cause walking/cycling routing issues.
>>
>> 2. I'm also not sure these signs have any legal effect at all.  They aren't 
>> privately owned.  The signs are just street decorations.  I'd be inclined to 
>>
>> Ian.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 22:36, Nemanja Bračko <>> brack...@gmail.com 
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>>> I would agree with David on this.
>>> In that way you will avoid routing thru these streets unless your 
>>> destination is there.
>>>
>>> Sent from my phone
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, 12:33 David Wales <>>> daviewa...@disroot.org 
>>>  wrote:
>>>
 I would use access=destination

 On 7 November 2019 10:21:26 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess < 
 mapp...@consebt.de  > wrote:

> Hello List,
>
> how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one? 
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw 
> 
>
> Following > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access 
> >  states "...Note 
> that "access only for residents" is private..."
>
> Would this not break navigation in apps etc?
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
> 
>
 ___
  Talk-au mailing list
   Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
   https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
 

>>> ___
>>>  Talk-au mailing list
>>>  >>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
>>>  >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
>>> 
>>>
>> ___
>>  Talk-au mailing list
>>  >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org 
>>  >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au 
>> 
>>

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Is it "local traffic only" as in "resident only" or "no transit"?

Is permission required to enter this area?

AFAIK there is no tagging scheme for distinguishing "only with permission of
homeowner" and "available to all residents of closed community".

7 Nov 2019, 12:21 by mapp...@consebt.de :

> Hello List,
>
> how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one? 
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw
>
> Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states "...Note that 
> "access only for residents" is private..."
>
> Would this not break navigation in apps etc?
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Ian Sergeant]

I agree the meaning of "discouraged" is what we need here.  But motor
vehicles are only discouraged if they aren't local traffic.  Otherwise they
are perfectly fine.

So, I think the motor_vehicle:advisory=destination covers these two
concepts, and is a better representation.

Ian.

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 18:58, Benjamin Ceravolo 
wrote:

> I feel, as though discourage or discouraged is already an advisory term
> (you can't advise a recommendation if advise is a synonym of recommend).
>
> So I would think "motor_vehicle=discouraged" would be most appropriate.
>
> Just my thoughts.
>
> Ben
>
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 18:12, Luke Stewart 
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps "motor_vehicle=discouraged"?
>>
>> From the wiki:
>> A legal right of way exists (see yes
>> ) but usage is
>> officially discouraged (e.g., HGVs on narrow but passable lanes). Only if
>> marked by a traffic sign (subjective otherwise).
>>
>> Although that may be getting too far away from the meaning of the sign,
>> but the original intention is to discourage through and non-local traffic
>>
>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 15:31, Andrew Harvey 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I guess https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access does say "Access
>>> values describe legal permissions/restrictions. What happens on the ground
>>> may be different: for instance, many footpaths are used as de facto bike
>>> paths, without a legal right to do so. (Various 'greyzone' tags have been
>>> proposed to deal with such situations, but this is controversial and is not
>>> described here.)"
>>>
>>> Similar to existing "maxspeed:advisory"
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:advisory perhaps if
>>> these aren't legal restrictions but still signposted on the ground we could
>>> use "motor_vehicle:advisory=destination". Does that work better?
>>>
>>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 13:04, Luke Stewart 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 As far as I have read, these signs are not enforceable by councils, nor
 do they appear in the NSW (or Australian) Road Rules. So unless the road
 itself is on private property and this sign is present, the access would
 still be public and it has the same meaning as discouraging the use of the
 street in favour of main roads.
 ___
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

>>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Benjamin Ceravolo]

I feel, as though discourage or discouraged is already an advisory term
(you can't advise a recommendation if advise is a synonym of recommend).

So I would think "motor_vehicle=discouraged" would be most appropriate.

Just my thoughts.

Ben

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 18:12, Luke Stewart 
wrote:

> Perhaps "motor_vehicle=discouraged"?
>
> From the wiki:
> A legal right of way exists (see yes
> ) but usage is
> officially discouraged (e.g., HGVs on narrow but passable lanes). Only if
> marked by a traffic sign (subjective otherwise).
>
> Although that may be getting too far away from the meaning of the sign,
> but the original intention is to discourage through and non-local traffic
>
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 15:31, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>> I guess https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access does say "Access
>> values describe legal permissions/restrictions. What happens on the ground
>> may be different: for instance, many footpaths are used as de facto bike
>> paths, without a legal right to do so. (Various 'greyzone' tags have been
>> proposed to deal with such situations, but this is controversial and is not
>> described here.)"
>>
>> Similar to existing "maxspeed:advisory"
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:advisory perhaps if
>> these aren't legal restrictions but still signposted on the ground we could
>> use "motor_vehicle:advisory=destination". Does that work better?
>>
>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 13:04, Luke Stewart 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> As far as I have read, these signs are not enforceable by councils, nor
>>> do they appear in the NSW (or Australian) Road Rules. So unless the road
>>> itself is on private property and this sign is present, the access would
>>> still be public and it has the same meaning as discouraging the use of the
>>> street in favour of main roads.
>>> ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Luke Stewart]

Perhaps "motor_vehicle=discouraged"?

>From the wiki:
A legal right of way exists (see yes
) but usage is
officially discouraged (e.g., HGVs on narrow but passable lanes). Only if
marked by a traffic sign (subjective otherwise).

Although that may be getting too far away from the meaning of the sign, but
the original intention is to discourage through and non-local traffic

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 15:31, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> I guess https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access does say "Access
> values describe legal permissions/restrictions. What happens on the ground
> may be different: for instance, many footpaths are used as de facto bike
> paths, without a legal right to do so. (Various 'greyzone' tags have been
> proposed to deal with such situations, but this is controversial and is not
> described here.)"
>
> Similar to existing "maxspeed:advisory"
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:advisory perhaps if
> these aren't legal restrictions but still signposted on the ground we could
> use "motor_vehicle:advisory=destination". Does that work better?
>
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 13:04, Luke Stewart 
> wrote:
>
>> As far as I have read, these signs are not enforceable by councils, nor
>> do they appear in the NSW (or Australian) Road Rules. So unless the road
>> itself is on private property and this sign is present, the access would
>> still be public and it has the same meaning as discouraging the use of the
>> street in favour of main roads.
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Andrew Harvey]

I guess https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access does say "Access
values describe legal permissions/restrictions. What happens on the ground
may be different: for instance, many footpaths are used as de facto bike
paths, without a legal right to do so. (Various 'greyzone' tags have been
proposed to deal with such situations, but this is controversial and is not
described here.)"

Similar to existing "maxspeed:advisory"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:advisory perhaps if these
aren't legal restrictions but still signposted on the ground we could use
"motor_vehicle:advisory=destination". Does that work better?

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 13:04, Luke Stewart 
wrote:

> As far as I have read, these signs are not enforceable by councils, nor do
> they appear in the NSW (or Australian) Road Rules. So unless the road
> itself is on private property and this sign is present, the access would
> still be public and it has the same meaning as discouraging the use of the
> street in favour of main roads.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Warin]

There is one group of roads with these kinds of signs. As they are on 
Forestry Commission property and would be maintained by them I would 
think they have some control over who uses them.


On 08/11/19 10:24, Andrew Harvey wrote:
The fact that they are not legally enforceable I think is irrelevant, 
after all you can always tell your router to ignore access=destination 
if you like. Rather this tagging accurately reflects the officially 
signposted "recommendation".


I agree they are targeted at vehicles, so that's why I'd recommend 
motor_vehicle=destination rather than a blanket access=destination.


On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 10:05, Ian Sergeant > wrote:


I disagree with this one

1. I'm pretty sure they are not intended to have any effect to
cyclists and pedestrians.  Who are generally encouraged to use
these kinds of streets.  I wouldn't like to think we're putting
access restrictions that are going to cause walking/cycling
routing issues.

2. I'm also not sure these signs have any legal effect at all. 
They aren't privately owned.  The signs are just street
decorations.  I'd be inclined to

Ian.


On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 22:36, Nemanja Bračko mailto:brack...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I would agree with David on this.
In that way you will avoid routing thru these streets unless
your destination is there.

Sent from my phone

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, 12:33 David Wales mailto:daviewa...@disroot.org>> wrote:

I would use access=destination

On 7 November 2019 10:21:26 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess
mailto:mapp...@consebt.de>> wrote:

Hello List,

how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one?
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw

Followinghttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access  states 
"...Note
that "access only for residents" is private..."

Would this not break navigation in apps etc?





___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Luke Stewart]

As far as I have read, these signs are not enforceable by councils, nor do
they appear in the NSW (or Australian) Road Rules. So unless the road
itself is on private property and this sign is present, the access would
still be public and it has the same meaning as discouraging the use of the
street in favour of main roads.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Andrew Harvey]

The fact that they are not legally enforceable I think is irrelevant, after
all you can always tell your router to ignore access=destination if you
like. Rather this tagging accurately reflects the officially signposted
"recommendation".

I agree they are targeted at vehicles, so that's why I'd recommend
motor_vehicle=destination rather than a blanket access=destination.

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 10:05, Ian Sergeant  wrote:

> I disagree with this one
>
> 1. I'm pretty sure they are not intended to have any effect to cyclists
> and pedestrians.  Who are generally encouraged to use these kinds of
> streets.  I wouldn't like to think we're putting access restrictions that
> are going to cause walking/cycling routing issues.
>
> 2. I'm also not sure these signs have any legal effect at all.  They
> aren't privately owned.  The signs are just street decorations.  I'd be
> inclined to
>
> Ian.
>
>
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 22:36, Nemanja Bračko  wrote:
>
>> I would agree with David on this.
>> In that way you will avoid routing thru these streets unless your
>> destination is there.
>>
>> Sent from my phone
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, 12:33 David Wales  wrote:
>>
>>> I would use access=destination
>>>
>>> On 7 November 2019 10:21:26 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess <
>>> mapp...@consebt.de> wrote:

 Hello List,

 how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one?
 https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw

 Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states "...Note
 that "access only for residents" is private..."

 Would this not break navigation in apps etc?
 --
 Talk-au mailing list
 Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

 ___
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Ian Sergeant]

I disagree with this one

1. I'm pretty sure they are not intended to have any effect to cyclists and
pedestrians.  Who are generally encouraged to use these kinds of streets.
I wouldn't like to think we're putting access restrictions that are going
to cause walking/cycling routing issues.

2. I'm also not sure these signs have any legal effect at all.  They aren't
privately owned.  The signs are just street decorations.  I'd be inclined
to

Ian.


On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 22:36, Nemanja Bračko  wrote:

> I would agree with David on this.
> In that way you will avoid routing thru these streets unless your
> destination is there.
>
> Sent from my phone
>
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, 12:33 David Wales  wrote:
>
>> I would use access=destination
>>
>> On 7 November 2019 10:21:26 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello List,
>>>
>>> how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one?
>>> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw
>>>
>>> Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states "...Note
>>> that "access only for residents" is private..."
>>>
>>> Would this not break navigation in apps etc?
>>> --
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>>> ___
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Nemanja Bračko]

I would agree with David on this.
In that way you will avoid routing thru these streets unless your
destination is there.

Sent from my phone

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, 12:33 David Wales  wrote:

> I would use access=destination
>
> On 7 November 2019 10:21:26 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello List,
>>
>> how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one?
>> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw
>>
>> Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states "...Note
>> that "access only for residents" is private..."
>>
>> Would this not break navigation in apps etc?
>> --
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[Andrew Harvey]

access=destination, or better yet motor_vehicle=destination (since it
probably shouldn't affect foot traffic) The wiki it says "Only when
travelling to this element/area; i.e., local traffic only." which is what
this imlies that if you're going to somewhere along here you can travel,
but not if you're just passing through.

I've used this tag for the exact same type of sign. You'd hope that
navigation would then avoid routing through these roads unless you have a
waypoint or destination along the road.

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 22:23, Sebastian Spiess  wrote:

> Hello List,
>
> how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one?
> https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw
>
> Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states "...Note
> that "access only for residents" is private..."
>
> Would this not break navigation in apps etc?
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

[David Wales]

I would use access=destination

On 7 November 2019 10:21:26 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess  
wrote:
>Hello List,
>
>how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one? 
>https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw
>
>Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states
>"...Note 
>that "access only for residents" is private..."
>
>Would this not break navigation in apps etc?
>
>___
>Talk-au mailing list
>Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] local traffic only

[Sebastian Spiess]

Hello List,

how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one? 
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw


Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states "...Note 
that "access only for residents" is private..."


Would this not break navigation in apps etc?

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au