How to express non-motorized for some vehicle categories?
Is this correct?
non_motorized_*=*
Correct English?
I just want to use one keytag.
Avoiding opposite tagging to neutralize for other keys.
Legislation describes non-motorised categories.
In one tag? No.
But you can use vehicle= + motor_vehicle=
For example, if nonmotor vehicle are banned you can use vehicle=no motor_vehicle=yes
If motorised vehicles are banned then use motor_vehicle=no
And so on.
2 Likes
Ofcourse I know this, the methodology.
But why canāt there be non_motor_vehicle, if there is one, there is also a other. Makes sense anyway.
We always speak and write, non-motorised as we express it. Then why use two keys to express, which some does not understand that easy. It makes it more complex.
I just want to avoid that, neutralizing, this give problems, yes or no, but there is also permissive, destination etc., when there are multiple undersigns in combination with making presets.
I see people making mistakes, the smalller transportmodes, with not much OSM taggers, suffer from this.
non_motorized_disabled_vehicle=*
or
non_motorized_mobility_aid_vehicle=*
Legislation describes non-motorised vehicle category for use by disabled.
It can exist but
- it does not really exist now
- adding it would require support in huge number of places
- overall benefits would be highly dubious - it provides shortcut for this very specific case, but increases overall complexity
1 Like
if used is non_motorized_*=* correct to express it?
You can use it ( Any tags you like - OpenStreetMap Wiki ) but it will be more confusing to other mappers than using vehicle + motor_vehicle and unlikely to be supported by any data consumers (even vehicle and motor_vehicle have troubled support) and likely sooner or later be retagged.
1 Like
I agree with @Mateusz_Konieczny that an apparently simple solution can lead to additonal complexity at the end of the day.
Actually I cannot imagine what you intend to tag with " non_motorized_disabled_vehicle=* " - maybe you could give an example of the situation OTG which could help to understand your request.
3 Likes
Trying to tag as directly as possible traffic_signs for preset, avoiding, neutralizing.
for example:
legislation
C14
Gesloten voor fietsen en voor gehandicaptenvoertuigen zonder motor
translated:
Closed to bicycles and disabled vehicles without engines
That is also a wheelchair, but this category have also motorized versions.
Then there is
C13
Gesloten voor bromfietsen, snorfietsen en gehandicaptenvoertuigen met in werking zijnde motor
Translated:
Closed to mopeds, mofas and disabled vehicles with engines running
Gehandicaptenvoertuig with motor as a example, there is mentioned, mobility_scooter.
legislation
gehandicaptenvoertuig: voertuig dat is ingericht voor het vervoer van een gehandicapte, niet breder is dan 1,10 meter en niet is uitgerust met een motor, dan wel is uitgerust met een motor waarvan de door de constructie bepaalde maximumsnelheid niet meer dan 45 km per uur bedraagt, en geen bromfiets is;
Translated:
disabled vehicle: vehicle equipped to transport a disabled person, not wider than 1.10 metres and not fitted with an engine, or fitted with an engine whose maximum design speed does not exceed 45 km/h, and is not a mop
legislation:
Bestuurders van een gehandicaptenvoertuig gebruiken het trottoir, het voetpad, het fietspad, het fiets/bromfietspad of de rijbaan.
Translated:
Drivers of a disabled vehicle use the sidewalk, footpath, bicycle path, bicycle/moped path or carriageway.
If it is not prohibited by a sign as mentioned above.
A non disabled person can also drive this vehicle.
They can ride on a sidewalk/footway only with 6 km/h.
They can park on sidewalk/footway.
Finding a suitable key is tough. To express the above signs.
OK, that is the reason why I could not imagine what you would like to tag. In Germany ādisabled vehicles without engineā are not grouped together with bicycles. They are allowed to drive on all the ways where pedestrians are allowed and there are no explicit restrictions to them (according to my knowledge). And they are not permitted to be used on the carriageway.
Again disabled vehicles with engine are not grouped together with mofas. So the legislation in your country is quite different from the one I am used to.
I understand sign C14 is put up on roads which are closed to bicycles and disabled vehicles without enginge but other vehicles without enginge (like horse carriage) may pass? In this case the established tags cannot describe the situation precisely.
The same applies to C13. No established tag for this case.
Iām sure other users will disagree but in view of the given legislation I think tags for disabled vehicles are necessary even if data consumers will not give support at the time being. I would make use of motorized and unmotorized (which is more simple than non-motorized) resulting in
C14
bicycle=no
unmotorized_disabled_vehicles=no
C13
moped/mofa=no
motorized_disabled_vehicles=no
I am looking forward the more opinions ā¦ 
Given that weāre currently seeing every country ārolling its ownā new legislation for different types of motorized/unmotorized vehicle types, it might be appropriate to introduce:motorised/:unmotorised to add to existing tags? Just spitballing here, but it might make tagging and data consumption easier if we consider these subtags of others. So bicycle:motorised=no would allow bicycles, but not pedelecs, and so on and so forth. Not sure the idea is great, but wanted to throw it into the mix.
On talk mailing in the past I asked also somthing about this, there some wrote disabled_vehicle=* is a vehicle, which is not complete, partly disabled. They found is not a good key.
Also disabled_motor_vehicle, probably corresponds too much to motor_vehicle.
mobility_aid_vehicle?
Under bicycle hierarchy there is now electric_bicycle a choice of methodology.
motorised could be all kind of engines.
Legislation often write special rules for electric and so on. Which is used on undersigns making a group inside a group.
That is better if this is correct english, then non_motorized, thanks.
Thatās the whole point. You could even add :electric and :combustion to target them specifically. The next time a country decides to block roads for all HGVs except electric ones, we come up with electric_hgv? Iām not saying the idea is perfect, but seeing how some countries want to be very explicit about vehicle and engine types, it might make sense to mimic them this way.
In the future, if there are going to be non-combustion zones (not saying there are, but it doesnāt sound too unlikely), something like access:combustion=no would work. And data consumers would not have to learn dozens of new keys, just some suffixes. Our city is already thinking about adding zones for electric buses only. electric_bus or bus:electric? Itās probably not too late to rethink this, because it would keep the existing hierarchy.
I think youāre referring to what we call a mobility scooter in the UK.
It can be used by disabled persons but itās also for those with limited mobility.
In the UK, it depends on the type of mobility scooter as to whether theyāre allowed on the road or not. They are also heavily restricted in speed (4mph on footpaths and 8mph on roads).
1 Like
Must it be new keys?
bus=no;yes @ (electric) Could dataconsumers work with that? Also a choice of methodology.
Image: Rotterdam undersign except 100% electric, exemption holders, emergency services
There all kinds of new rules, here they are talking about agricultural, tractor specific, km classes in speed then it need de KM notification in key or value.
The simplest is single key with single value, electric_bus=yes
but we have also the syntax with conditional restriction where it must fit in, so that dataconsumer understand it.
just as
noā£@ā£(weight>5)
yesā£@ā£(axleheight > 0.15)
Ontopic: is motorrized a key or value thing?
disabled_vehicle= no;yes @ (motorrized)
No, mobilityscooter is a undercatogorie of disabled_vehicle (mobility_aid_vehicle)
Has his own OSM tag, taginfo
The traffic_sign, rule mention the whole categporie disabled_vehicle (gehandicaptenvoertuigen)
disabled_vehicle
|
|---motorized_disabled_vehicle
| |
| |--- mobility_scooter
|
|
|---unmotorized_disabled_vehicle
| |
You mean bus:conditional=no; yes @ (electric)
Certainly an option, but probably better to use electric as a value for something like motorisation=electric/combustion/none, because otherwise negation will become hard (bicycle=no; yes @ (motorisation=none)). Though, chances are even lower to get anyone to support this via :conditional compared to :electric since the complexity is on a much higher scale. But something to keep in mind.
I fully agree with your thoughts and it would be well worth to think about a consistent tagging scheme to distinguish between motor vehicles with combustion engine and electric motor. We will definitely see more and more spaces reserved for electric powered verhicles in future.
Anyhow this is not the question here - it would be welll worth to discuss this in a seperate topic imho.
No, because it is not a conditional, itās 24 hours, therefor not conditional.
A good thing about this thread is from a small example it gives a view in methodology, what to choose and what to use elsewhere.
agricultural:speed25 agricultural:speed45 for a tractor as a example mentioned earlier.
Conditional restrictions are used, whenever restrictions apply only under certain conditions, e.g. bus:conditional=no @ (maxweight>5), or maxweight:conditional=none @ destination. Itās not limited to time constraints or conditions. If you want to use the syntax for conditional values (no; yes @ electric), you will have to use the :conditional suffix. So it would actually be better to write it like bus=no + bus:conditional=yes @ electric.
Because conditions are hard to parse, some of them were moved to suffix keys, like :wet. Thatās why Iām suggesting to do the same for things like motorised, unmotorised, electric, and combustion.
How is saying āIād use a suffix like :unmotorised instead of creating new transportation modesā not an answer to the original question 
?
Cāmon bro, if you read my post you must be aware that I did not talk about the issue of motorized and unmotorized ā¦ in your post I quoted you did not talk about :unmotorized at all but exclusively about the question of how to distinguish in future between engine types (combustion/electric) which I still believe is worth to be discussed in a seperate topic.