Hello Kerry and Greg:
Even though I'm "just" a lay person in this regard, I'm rather
familiar with the MUTCD (though not at the level of detail of a
traffic engineer or a professional urban transportation planner).
Any "federal standard" about stop signs being red and eight sided and
intersections being marked in consistent ways happens because of a
well-understood scenario, envisioned by the authors of our federal
Constitution: states develop such things in an experimental way,
some solutions are found to be more successful than others, and hence
emerge, then other states pick up on working solutions and they
implement them as well. Sometimes (as with traffic engineering, the
MUTCD and Interstate Highways), formal standards bodies (like AASHTO)
craft such statewide standards into something which "resembles" a
federal standard, but in fact are more like a broad understanding:
states together coming to agreement independent of the federal
government. AASHTO, after all, is a non-profit of professionals, and
while it is based in Washington, DC, it is not part of the federal
government.
I say this to underscore my original point: the distinction between
what is federal (only those "enumerated powers" specified in the
Constitution), and what is state (everything else). Much about this
continues to be confused in the public mind, (a failure of good
civics in our public schools?) but the basic facts of this haven't
changed in over 200 years. I don't want to get overtly political,
but it does seem to bear repeating in this context. Oh, and states
accepting federal dollars doesn't "override" state's rights, states
simply give away certain sovereign rights in exchange for the
dollars. They don't have to, but that IS the bargain.
In short, states are responsible for traffic laws. There is some
overlap between state and federal which has been deliberately crafted
(Interstate Highways, ICE-TEA funding, MPOs usurping local control
via federal $...), but the fact of state/local control over
transportation infrastructure, law and funding remains essentially
true, until something explicit (e.g. acceptance of federal $) changes
it.
I don't know what the answers might be regarding prima facie speed
limits in OSM. It doesn't seem totally incorrect to put these in,
but again, I find speed limits in OSM most useful when they designate
where a sign explicitly specifies what speed limits are where. "Data
consumers" (ETA algorithms...) may or may not use such data. The
"better" ones might pay attention to them, then use them or ignore
them based upon even MORE intelligence. Yet again: conscientious
attention to both structured data and code (logic) is warranted.
SteveA
California
Signage standards are contained in the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices). These are standards, not absolute
requirements, but you will find them followed pretty closely because
traffic engineers don't like having to explain why they have not
complied with standards. Several states have their own version of
the MUTCD, usually with either a few additions to the MUTCD or even
by reducing the options of signage.
Kerry Irons
From: Greg Morgan [mailto:dr.kludge...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 9:22 AM
To: stevea
Cc: talk-us@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Prima Facie Speed Limits
I wonder if 15 mph in a school zone and 25 mph in a residential area
are some sort of federal standard? The source tag might be useful
but not much different than other states.
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:31 AM, stevea
<<mailto:stevea...@softworkers.com>stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote:
The federal government doesn't have anything to say about speed
limits (in states), as the US Constitution leaves such things to the
states.
I was thinking more like a stop sign is red and eight sided. A
traffic engineer told me that there is a federal standard governing
how intersections are marked, etc.
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
