On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 11:37:22PM +0200, Ben Laenen wrote: > On Tuesday 01 October 2013 22:56:33 André Pirard wrote: > > vehicle=no alone is wrong because it allows access to horses. > > access=destination is wrong because it does not allow access to > > pedestrians and to horses, and delivery and emergency vehicles must be > > added. > > Here's the flaw in this: no-one will do this, no editor will do this, no > person will do this. Almost everyone in Belgium who encountered an > "uitgezonderd plaatselijk verkeer" sign has tagged it with access= > destination. No-one will systematically add all the tags needed to translate > that to their own vehicle tree. Some that try will forget one or more vehicle > type etc. > > And you're an example yourself, because if you say that the "vehicle" class > doesn't include horse drivers, well, it also doesn't include cattle, pack > animals etc. They also have drivers, which is what the C3 sign prohibits. > Drive a camel or an elephant and you're not allowed. Not very likely maybe, > but nevertheless, walk next to a cow to move it between two fields and you > have become a driver. Tagging a simple C3 sign will be a lot of fun. > > Hence, in Belgium, "vehicle" will include all things that have a driver, > because that suits our traffic code best. I've always held the belief that > tagging should be as straight forward as possible and that one traffic sign > (or more specifically: one element of information on a traffic sign) should > preferably translate to one tag in OSM.
Has there been any discussion on this on other lists? Some proposal on where we can define that vehicle=no implies bicylce=no for Belgium? Do you know of any software that then properly uses that information if there is such information? Kurt _______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
