2009/8/13 David Earl <da...@frankieandshadow.com>: > How do you know what is "legal" vs "conventional"? Except if you are in > a privileged position, it can only be from evidence on the ground, in > which case what would you do different in most cases?
I don't think it requires a "privileged position" in a democratic country to get this kind of information, but it might be easier and faster if you are in it. You could check your local town council announcements (they are a usable source, as the have law-like nature and are therefore not protected by copyright) or similar stuff that deals with this topic. > Would you mark > something as a cycleway where cycling (or whatever) is happening but not > legal (as evidenced by the signage and knowledge of the relevant rules)? no, but I'm actually tagging it as bicycle=yes because it is tolerated (and there is no fine). > Or not for cycles when the evidence shows that it is intended so? I > think this legal stuff is a red herring (English idiom: a distraction) > except in certain special cases. > My feeling is that what we are missing is largely country-specific > defaults. Or rather we have failed to recognise this in the > documentation, but it is what pretty much everyone is doing in practice > already, and that's got a lot going for it. yes, it simply is not documented (yet). > When we have exceptions, again the common practice is for people to > indicate them. Hence a weight limit or a time restriction. +1 > So my feeling is we should document what collection of users a > particular highway tag applies to by default IN EACH COUNTRY (including > things like "under 12" or "not on a Sunday" if that's the normal > situation). Then tags and renderings mean what ordinary people (users > and mappers) expect them to mean. +1 > If a particular footway is specifically open to cyclists, for example a > permissive path that someone quoted, then if the local rules are that > pedestrians can use cycleways, it makes no functional difference whether > it is marked as a footway where cycling is permitted (by whatever > tagging convention) or as a cycleway. you're wrong. It makes a difference on how the cyclist can go (implicit maxspeed) and it makes a difference for the pedestrian who can not legally use a cycleway. > So I say: keep it simple, keep it compatible. Carry on with the simple, > established tags we already have, but just clarify the default use > classes which apply to each highway tag, PER COUNTRY, and tag exceptions > to these according to evidence on the ground. +1 > Add specific legal > designations only where expert knowledge is available and different from > the default interpretation. why? It doesn't harm and serves in cases of ambiguity. > I think the same principle applies to speed limits (motorway 70mph, > trunk 60mph in UK, unlimited and whatever km/h in Germany etc), weight > limits and so on. actually we put maxspeed on all highways in Rome from unclassified upwards, even when it is just implicit, and invented a tag to indicate that the maxspeed is not explicit. We add a key maxspeed=50 and maxspeedtype=ITA:city In the unlikely case that the general maxspeed in Italian towns is changed, we can change those maxspeeds that are implicit ones automatically. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
