Dear list Im tired and muddled. I think Sebastian posted swapped the 2
issues when he posted, sorry if its my mistake
Quoting fors...@ozonline.com.au:
Hi Sebastian
A quick reply now, its late, and maybe more considered tomorrow
its tagged highway=track
I can see no "access all=yes" so nothin
Hi all, I see Sebastian has posted to the list now
background to this: Way History: 679145843
about a year ago Sebastian had bicycle=no, highway=track
as part of the DWG sanctioned revert I deleted the bicycle=no
Hi Sebastian
a bit more,
If I wanted to add tags I would go on site have a look and
The access tag doesn't really capture if it's private property or not. You
can have private property which is open to the public, and you can have
public lands closed to the public. So you can't really set the access tag
just on the basis of it being private land as it all depends how it's
signed o
Hi Sebastian
access=privateAccess is only with permission on an individual basis
access=destinationTransit traffic forbidden
access=permissive open to general traffic until such time as the
owner revoke the permission
My inclination is that if you are not sure, don't use the t
In using the tag access=permissive, how does one verify that access has not
been revoked by the owner?
In one of the changesets in question, the site clearly private property (as it
is a retirement village)
I would have thought that access=private would have been a better tag to use in
lieu of d
Hi
I have left a changeset comment alerting him to the talk-au discussion.
Tony
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 10:22, wrote:
Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit
traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the
access=destination tag.
Have I got it right
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 10:22, wrote:
> Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit
> traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the
> access=destination tag.
>
> Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does not
> conform?
>
See also
ht
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 11:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> Personally, yes, these & similar are the only times I would use that e.g.
> https://goo.gl/maps/ACMTnn6gQJTLz5NF6 (& as always, for illustration
> only!)
>
That sign looks like hgv=no. So no heavy goods vehicles, but anyone else
can use i
On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 at 09:22, wrote:
>
> Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit
> traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the
> access=destination tag.
>
Personally, yes, these & similar are the only times I would use that e.g.
https://goo.gl/maps/
oops, forgot to add these
Multiple entrances with restricting signage
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-37.83471/145.03179 (Scotch College)
Multiple entrances gated and signed (Museum, Carlton Gardens)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/209893402
Multiple entrances gatedand signed
https://
Hi all
Up to now I have only questioned Sebastian (HighRouleur) on his
information sources and reasoning on the use of access=destination
First going to the wiki: "Transit traffic forbidden, all non-transit
traffic to a given element allowed."
But I am aware that the wiki does not trump c
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:07 PM, Stephen Hope wrote:
>
> A "Local Traffic" sign is a recommendation, not a law. As such, it is
> sort of the opposite of access=designated, which is designed to show
> places we would prefer certain vehicles to go, this is designed to
> show places we would prefer t
2010/1/25 Roy Wallace :
>
>> > "The 'Local Traffic Only' sign is an advisory sign only and is not
>> > regulatory.
>
> I don't think this is important, but this could be specified using
> motor_vehicle:regulatory=no (or inferred from
> motor_vehicle:source="Local Traffic Only sign")
Actually, thi
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Liz wrote:
>
> Great work Roy
Cheers :)
> (not providing any suggestions)
Alright how's this
> > It is an advisory sign to all road users advising the street is not
> > intended to be used by through traffic, however vehicles are the
> > primary target (bic
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Roy Wallace wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> > ... I've emailed QLD gov and Brisbane CC about what the signs mean,
> > though I'm not holding my breath for a response...
>
> An email response from the "Road Safety & System Management Division,
>
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
>
> ... I've emailed QLD gov and Brisbane CC about what the signs mean,
> though I'm not holding my breath for a response...
An email response from the "Road Safety & System Management Division,
Department of Transport and Main Roads" (QLD):
--
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Stephen Hope wrote:
> In one of the QLD gov handouts - "Your keys to driving in Queensland", it says
>
> "The road past the sign is not intended for through traffic. The sign
> may be at the entrance to a local area or at detours where local
> traffic is allowed t
In one of the QLD gov handouts - "Your keys to driving in Queensland", it says
"The road past the sign is not intended for through traffic. The sign
may be at the entrance to a local area or at detours where local
traffic is allowed to enter the work area."
Doesn't actually say you can't go there
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Steve Bennett wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:10 PM, James Livingston wrote:
> > On 15/01/2010, at 8:45 PM, Liz wrote:
> >> so perhaps the signs are actually meaningless in law
> >> they appear in council minutes so perhaps its a local council job
> >
> > From my searching,
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> For the time being, it might be best to tag them with a specific
> "local_traffic_only=yes" or something, so we know exactly what is
> being encoded.
+1. I've emailed QLD gov and Brisbane CC about what the signs mean,
though I'm not holdin
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:10 PM, James Livingston wrote:
> On 15/01/2010, at 8:45 PM, Liz wrote:
>> so perhaps the signs are actually meaningless in law
>> they appear in council minutes so perhaps its a local council job
>
> From my searching, it looks like councils are responsible for putting up
2010/1/16 Liz :
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, John Smith wrote:
>> We're tagging what the sign states, what it means will vary between
>> legal jurisdictions...
>>
>> __
>>
> but first we have to find out what it really means, and what are the
> restrictions
I'm not disagr
On 15/01/2010, at 8:45 PM, Liz wrote:
> so perhaps the signs are actually meaningless in law
> they appear in council minutes so perhaps its a local council job
>From my searching, it looks like councils are responsible for putting up these
>signs and I couldn't find any actual legal definition o
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, John Smith wrote:
> We're tagging what the sign states, what it means will vary between
> legal jurisdictions...
>
> __
>
but first we have to find out what it really means, and what are the
restrictions
how they compare to other restrictions
2010/1/16 Roy Wallace :
> The main issue that access=destination (i.e. applying to all traffic
> modes) is wrong - it isn't on the ground, and (quite probably...)
> isn't even in the legal books.
I haven't seen any signs that distinguish between traffic, they just
state "Local Traffic Only" anythi
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 7:41 AM, John Smith wrote:
> 2010/1/16 Roy Wallace :
>> Interesting. So this potentially means all access=destination tags
>> should be changed to motor_vehicle=destination + motorcycle=yes. Would
>> be better to first get confirmation from government on the sign's
>> meani
2010/1/16 Roy Wallace :
> Interesting. So this potentially means all access=destination tags
> should be changed to motor_vehicle=destination + motorcycle=yes. Would
> be better to first get confirmation from government on the sign's
> meaning though...
Does this mean we should tag bus lanes in NS
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 8:56 PM, John Smith wrote:
>
> Motorbike riders are exempt from a number of things cars aren't,
...
> So doesn't entirely surprise me.
Interesting. So this potentially means all access=destination tags
should be changed to motor_vehicle=destination + motorcycle=yes. Would
2010/1/15 Roy Wallace :
> So this would seem to infer that motorbike riders don't have to obey
> Local Traffic Only signs. Strange (and/or incorrect).
Motorbike riders are exempt from a number of things cars aren't,
they're allowed to be in transit lanes without any other passengers,
they're allow
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010, Roy Wallace wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> > Can you legally ride a bike
> > through a Local Traffic Only area?
>
> The closest I could find, for Queensland is from:
> http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TrantOpRURR09.pdf
>
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
>
> Can you legally ride a bike
> through a Local Traffic Only area?
The closest I could find, for Queensland is from:
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/T/TrantOpRURR09.pdf
"97 (1) Road access signs: A driver must not drive on
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> I would have thought so, because afaik these rules are to reduce
> traffic noise. Bicycles not being noisy, I would have thought they
> weren't included.
Maybe, but it's unclear... Anyone good at chasing down legal
definitions of road sign
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> I don't know. What are you basing that on? Can you legally ride a bike
> through a Local Traffic Only area? No idea, but I suspect not...
I would have thought so, because afaik these rules are to reduce
traffic noise. Bicycles not being noisy,
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> Logically, "access=destination" would apply to all forms of traffic.
> So you should tag it "motor_vehicle=destination", right?
I don't know. What are you basing that on? Can you legally ride a bike
through a Local Traffic Only area? No i
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> For roads with e.g. "Local Traffic Only" or "Through Traffic Keep
> Right" signs, should these be tagged with:
>
> access=destination (as is, I understand, common practice), OR
> vehicle=destination, OR something else?
>
> Apparently (says Davi
For roads with e.g. "Local Traffic Only" or "Through Traffic Keep
Right" signs, should these be tagged with:
access=destination (as is, I understand, common practice), OR
vehicle=destination, OR something else?
Apparently (says DavidDean), Gosmore excludes roads tagged with
access=destination whe
36 matches
Mail list logo
