local traffic only

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

local traffic only

Sebastian Spiess
Hello List,

how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one?
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw

Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states "...Note
that "access only for residents" is private..."

Would this not break navigation in apps etc?

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: local traffic only

David Wales
I would use access=destination

On 7 November 2019 10:21:26 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello List,

how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one?
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw

Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states "...Note
that "access only for residents" is private..."

Would this not break navigation in apps etc?
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: local traffic only

Andrew Harvey-3
In reply to this post by Sebastian Spiess
access=destination, or better yet motor_vehicle=destination (since it probably shouldn't affect foot traffic) The wiki it says "Only when travelling to this element/area; i.e., local traffic only." which is what this imlies that if you're going to somewhere along here you can travel, but not if you're just passing through.

I've used this tag for the exact same type of sign. You'd hope that navigation would then avoid routing through these roads unless you have a waypoint or destination along the road.

On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 22:23, Sebastian Spiess <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello List,

how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one?
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw

Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states "...Note
that "access only for residents" is private..."

Would this not break navigation in apps etc?

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: local traffic only

Nemanja Bračko
In reply to this post by David Wales
I would agree with David on this.
In that way you will avoid routing thru these streets unless your destination is there.

Sent from my phone

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, 12:33 David Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would use access=destination

On 7 November 2019 10:21:26 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello List,

how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one?
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw

Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states "...Note
that "access only for residents" is private..."

Would this not break navigation in apps etc?
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: local traffic only

Ian Sergeant-2
I disagree with this one

1. I'm pretty sure they are not intended to have any effect to cyclists and pedestrians.  Who are generally encouraged to use these kinds of streets.  I wouldn't like to think we're putting access restrictions that are going to cause walking/cycling routing issues.

2. I'm also not sure these signs have any legal effect at all.  They aren't privately owned.  The signs are just street decorations.  I'd be inclined to 

Ian.


On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 22:36, Nemanja Bračko <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would agree with David on this.
In that way you will avoid routing thru these streets unless your destination is there.

Sent from my phone

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, 12:33 David Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would use access=destination

On 7 November 2019 10:21:26 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello List,

how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one?
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw

Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states "...Note
that "access only for residents" is private..."

Would this not break navigation in apps etc?
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: local traffic only

Andrew Harvey-3
The fact that they are not legally enforceable I think is irrelevant, after all you can always tell your router to ignore access=destination if you like. Rather this tagging accurately reflects the officially signposted "recommendation".

I agree they are targeted at vehicles, so that's why I'd recommend motor_vehicle=destination rather than a blanket access=destination.

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 10:05, Ian Sergeant <[hidden email]> wrote:
I disagree with this one

1. I'm pretty sure they are not intended to have any effect to cyclists and pedestrians.  Who are generally encouraged to use these kinds of streets.  I wouldn't like to think we're putting access restrictions that are going to cause walking/cycling routing issues.

2. I'm also not sure these signs have any legal effect at all.  They aren't privately owned.  The signs are just street decorations.  I'd be inclined to 

Ian.


On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 22:36, Nemanja Bračko <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would agree with David on this.
In that way you will avoid routing thru these streets unless your destination is there.

Sent from my phone

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, 12:33 David Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would use access=destination

On 7 November 2019 10:21:26 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello List,

how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one?
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw

Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states "...Note
that "access only for residents" is private..."

Would this not break navigation in apps etc?
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: local traffic only

Luke Stewart
In reply to this post by Sebastian Spiess
As far as I have read, these signs are not enforceable by councils, nor do they appear in the NSW (or Australian) Road Rules. So unless the road itself is on private property and this sign is present, the access would still be public and it has the same meaning as discouraging the use of the street in favour of main roads.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: local traffic only

Warin
In reply to this post by Andrew Harvey-3
There is one group of roads with these kinds of signs. As they are on Forestry Commission property and would be maintained by them I would think they have some control over who uses them.

On 08/11/19 10:24, Andrew Harvey wrote:
The fact that they are not legally enforceable I think is irrelevant, after all you can always tell your router to ignore access=destination if you like. Rather this tagging accurately reflects the officially signposted "recommendation".

I agree they are targeted at vehicles, so that's why I'd recommend motor_vehicle=destination rather than a blanket access=destination.

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 10:05, Ian Sergeant <[hidden email]> wrote:
I disagree with this one

1. I'm pretty sure they are not intended to have any effect to cyclists and pedestrians.  Who are generally encouraged to use these kinds of streets.  I wouldn't like to think we're putting access restrictions that are going to cause walking/cycling routing issues.

2. I'm also not sure these signs have any legal effect at all.  They aren't privately owned.  The signs are just street decorations.  I'd be inclined to 

Ian.


On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 22:36, Nemanja Bračko <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would agree with David on this.
In that way you will avoid routing thru these streets unless your destination is there.

Sent from my phone

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, 12:33 David Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would use access=destination

On 7 November 2019 10:21:26 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello List,

how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one? 
https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw

Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states "...Note 
that "access only for residents" is private..."

Would this not break navigation in apps etc?


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: local traffic only

Andrew Harvey-3
In reply to this post by Luke Stewart
I guess https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access does say "Access values describe legal permissions/restrictions. What happens on the ground may be different: for instance, many footpaths are used as de facto bike paths, without a legal right to do so. (Various 'greyzone' tags have been proposed to deal with such situations, but this is controversial and is not described here.)"

Similar to existing "maxspeed:advisory" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:advisory perhaps if these aren't legal restrictions but still signposted on the ground we could use "motor_vehicle:advisory=destination". Does that work better?

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 13:04, Luke Stewart <[hidden email]> wrote:
As far as I have read, these signs are not enforceable by councils, nor do they appear in the NSW (or Australian) Road Rules. So unless the road itself is on private property and this sign is present, the access would still be public and it has the same meaning as discouraging the use of the street in favour of main roads.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: local traffic only

Luke Stewart
Perhaps "motor_vehicle=discouraged"?

From the wiki:
A legal right of way exists (see yes) but usage is officially discouraged (e.g., HGVs on narrow but passable lanes). Only if marked by a traffic sign (subjective otherwise).  

Although that may be getting too far away from the meaning of the sign, but the original intention is to discourage through and non-local traffic

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 15:31, Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]> wrote:
I guess https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access does say "Access values describe legal permissions/restrictions. What happens on the ground may be different: for instance, many footpaths are used as de facto bike paths, without a legal right to do so. (Various 'greyzone' tags have been proposed to deal with such situations, but this is controversial and is not described here.)"

Similar to existing "maxspeed:advisory" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:advisory perhaps if these aren't legal restrictions but still signposted on the ground we could use "motor_vehicle:advisory=destination". Does that work better?

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 13:04, Luke Stewart <[hidden email]> wrote:
As far as I have read, these signs are not enforceable by councils, nor do they appear in the NSW (or Australian) Road Rules. So unless the road itself is on private property and this sign is present, the access would still be public and it has the same meaning as discouraging the use of the street in favour of main roads.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: local traffic only

Benjamin Ceravolo
I feel, as though discourage or discouraged is already an advisory term (you can't advise a recommendation if advise is a synonym of recommend). 

So I would think "motor_vehicle=discouraged" would be most appropriate.

Just my thoughts.

Ben

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 18:12, Luke Stewart <[hidden email]> wrote:
Perhaps "motor_vehicle=discouraged"?

From the wiki:
A legal right of way exists (see yes) but usage is officially discouraged (e.g., HGVs on narrow but passable lanes). Only if marked by a traffic sign (subjective otherwise).  

Although that may be getting too far away from the meaning of the sign, but the original intention is to discourage through and non-local traffic

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 15:31, Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]> wrote:
I guess https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access does say "Access values describe legal permissions/restrictions. What happens on the ground may be different: for instance, many footpaths are used as de facto bike paths, without a legal right to do so. (Various 'greyzone' tags have been proposed to deal with such situations, but this is controversial and is not described here.)"

Similar to existing "maxspeed:advisory" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:advisory perhaps if these aren't legal restrictions but still signposted on the ground we could use "motor_vehicle:advisory=destination". Does that work better?

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 13:04, Luke Stewart <[hidden email]> wrote:
As far as I have read, these signs are not enforceable by councils, nor do they appear in the NSW (or Australian) Road Rules. So unless the road itself is on private property and this sign is present, the access would still be public and it has the same meaning as discouraging the use of the street in favour of main roads.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: local traffic only

Ian Sergeant-2
I agree the meaning of "discouraged" is what we need here.  But motor vehicles are only discouraged if they aren't local traffic.  Otherwise they are perfectly fine.

So, I think the motor_vehicle:advisory=destination covers these two concepts, and is a better representation.

Ian.

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 18:58, Benjamin Ceravolo <[hidden email]> wrote:
I feel, as though discourage or discouraged is already an advisory term (you can't advise a recommendation if advise is a synonym of recommend). 

So I would think "motor_vehicle=discouraged" would be most appropriate.

Just my thoughts.

Ben

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 18:12, Luke Stewart <[hidden email]> wrote:
Perhaps "motor_vehicle=discouraged"?

From the wiki:
A legal right of way exists (see yes) but usage is officially discouraged (e.g., HGVs on narrow but passable lanes). Only if marked by a traffic sign (subjective otherwise).  

Although that may be getting too far away from the meaning of the sign, but the original intention is to discourage through and non-local traffic

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 15:31, Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]> wrote:
I guess https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access does say "Access values describe legal permissions/restrictions. What happens on the ground may be different: for instance, many footpaths are used as de facto bike paths, without a legal right to do so. (Various 'greyzone' tags have been proposed to deal with such situations, but this is controversial and is not described here.)"

Similar to existing "maxspeed:advisory" https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed:advisory perhaps if these aren't legal restrictions but still signposted on the ground we could use "motor_vehicle:advisory=destination". Does that work better?

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 13:04, Luke Stewart <[hidden email]> wrote:
As far as I have read, these signs are not enforceable by councils, nor do they appear in the NSW (or Australian) Road Rules. So unless the road itself is on private property and this sign is present, the access would still be public and it has the same meaning as discouraging the use of the street in favour of main roads.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: local traffic only

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Sebastian Spiess
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".

7 Nov 2019, 12:21 by [hidden email]:
Hello List,

how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one? https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw

Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states "...Note that "access only for residents" is private..."

Would this not break navigation in apps etc?

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: local traffic only

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Andrew Harvey-3
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

8 Nov 2019, 00:24 by [hidden email]:
The fact that they are not legally enforceable I think is irrelevant, after all you can always tell your router to ignore access=destination if you like. Rather this tagging accurately reflects the officially signposted "recommendation".

I agree they are targeted at vehicles, so that's why I'd recommend motor_vehicle=destination rather than a blanket access=destination.

On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 at 10:05, Ian Sergeant <[hidden email]> wrote:
I disagree with this one

1. I'm pretty sure they are not intended to have any effect to cyclists and pedestrians.  Who are generally encouraged to use these kinds of streets.  I wouldn't like to think we're putting access restrictions that are going to cause walking/cycling routing issues.

2. I'm also not sure these signs have any legal effect at all.  They aren't privately owned.  The signs are just street decorations.  I'd be inclined to 

Ian.


On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 at 22:36, Nemanja Bračko <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would agree with David on this.
In that way you will avoid routing thru these streets unless your destination is there.

Sent from my phone

On Thu, Nov 7, 2019, 12:33 David Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would use access=destination

On 7 November 2019 10:21:26 pm AEDT, Sebastian Spiess <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello List,

how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one?

that "access only for residents" is private..."

Would this not break navigation in apps etc?
Talk-au mailing list
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: local traffic only

Andrew Harvey-3
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 02:24, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: local traffic only

Sebastian Spiess
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 02:24, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: local traffic only

Michael James

They existed prior to 1997 and were removed when the national rules were introduced that year.

 

It’s likely that local councils are unaware that they no longer have any legal purpose.

 

From: Sebastian S. <[hidden email]>
Sent: Sunday, 10 November 2019 9:50 PM
To: [hidden email]; Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]>; Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] local traffic only

 

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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 02:24, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: local traffic only

Ian Sergeant-2
In reply to this post by Sebastian Spiess
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. <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 02:24, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: local traffic only

Andrew Harvey-3
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 <[hidden email]> 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. <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 at 02:24, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: local traffic only

Warin
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
On 09/11/19 01:51, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
Is it "local traffic only" as in "resident only" or "no transit"?

Is permission required to enter this area?
No permission required.
Residents, their visitors, delivery vehicle going to the residents would all be allowed.

From where I have seen then they are to discourage transit traffic.

A search on austlit may give some results?


AFAIK there is no tagging scheme for distinguishing "only with permission of
homeowner" and "available to all residents of closed community".

7 Nov 2019, 12:21 by [hidden email]:
Hello List,

how do you map a 'local traffic only' sign as this one? https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/FkY8gmlGX2NmhUARyveMQw

Following https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access states "...Note that "access only for residents" is private..."

Would this not break navigation in apps etc?

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
12