André,
when you are solving the tagging for traffic signs, can you also solve
the problem described in
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=22151 ? :-)
In Germany there are roads that are disallowed for cyclist, only
because there is a cycling track next to it. BUT you can still drive
on that road with special types of cycles (e.g. velomobiles) or in
some parts of Germany when you ride in group. So the Germans do not
want to tag the main road with bicycle=no
so do not forget to invent new tags
velomobile and cyclist_in_group
I know a street that has a C1 (no entry) with underneath "except
processions". Yet another category that you have to add to all
roads...
There was a similar discussion on the tagging mailing list about cycle
bars. Some are placed so that a regular bike can pass, but tandems are
cycles with cart not. Yet 2 other categories.
I'll agree with Ben that it is impossible to make an explicit list of
all "vehicle" categories and put yes/no next to them. There probably
many categories that we do not know about but that are common in other
countries.
Stick to what we had. If there is a C3 sign that does not allow
cyclists. Let it be, just tag as you see it. And, if you wish, inform
the city and or the owner of the cycling network to inform them about
the contradiction.
regards
m.
p.s. Stijn, de tagging mailing list is nog een veel grote kiekenkot :-)
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Ben Laenen <benlae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Trying to reply to an HTML message is going to be fun, but here goes...
>
> On Tuesday 01 October 2013 23:00:33 André Pirard wrote:
>> I agree with you that, in contrast with what OSM seems to want to do (on the
>> wiki and on the tagging list), we cannot map everything down to the
>> slightest detail. And on the other hand, it is not mandatory do better
>> than the many mistakes that exist in the law and administration. But we
>> should not pretend to map traffic rules and do it plain wrong. If we tag
>> bicycle=yes where it should be =no, the marvelous OSM routing programs will
>> send bicycles there. In that case, we'd better tag nothing at all.
>
> Do I want to tag bicycle=yes where cyclists aren't allowed then? I'm just
> saying that access=destination will automatically create an exception in
> Belgium for cyclists etc.
>
>
>> Click here to open this map. You see the route. Select Goods,
>> recalculate. No change. Now select Heavy Goods, recalculate. See? It
>> understood the hgv-only restriction. That program is even laughing at the
>> road administration because the route is perfectly respectful of the signs
>> but I know that what they want is preventing the HGVs to go down this road
>> and through Esneux. Now, try doing this with Google Maps, try with
>> ViaMichelin, anything else to try?
>
> I'm wondering which sign there is on that road. Google street view doesn't
> show anything there. But it's a bit weird that heavy goods vehicles are
> blocked on such a road and then sent around smaller roads. Road works going on
> there?
>
>> C3
>> No entry in both directions
>>
>> vehicle=no
>> horse=no
>
> And as I mentioned in my previous message: you're disregarding a lot of other
> animals. You quoted it in your traffic code snippet, but you didn't add the
> tags.
>
>
>> Hence, C3 = "destination"
>> applies to ("vehicle" plus "horse") minus ("bicycle" plus "horse")
>>
>> vehicle=destination
>> delivery=yes
>
> You just missed the definition of the "destination" access tag.
>
>> emergency=yes
>
> I have yet to find a road where emergency vehicles aren't allowed.
>
>> bicycle=yes
>
>
>> In consequence, I have modified our wiki as follows.
>
> Great, now change it back the way it was. You don't do that without
> discussion.
>
> Greetings
> Ben
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
_______________________________________________
Talk-be mailing list
Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
