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 <inas66+...@gmail.com > <mailto:inas66%2b...@gmail.com>> 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. <mapp...@consebt.de > <mailto:mapp...@consebt.de>> 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 <mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> > wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 02:24, Mateusz Konieczny > <matkoni...@tutanota.com <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 > <matkoni...@tutanota.com <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 <mailto: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