This traffic restriction sign is at the entrance: Google maps note: I have verified this myself from a manual survey
Sign text as written:
Pedestrian Zone
No Vehicles
Except taxis &
buses at all times
and cycling
& loading
6 pm - 10 am
A few questions:
Does the permitted time (1800-1000) apply to both loading vehicles and cyclists? It reads like that to me, with the “and” setting a new clause - otherwise wouldn’t it be taxis, buses and cycling at all times? Although seems quite odd!
Is motor_vehicle:conditional=delivery @ 1800-1000 correct to add alongside the already tagged motor_vehicle=no?
When do restrictions such as this turn highway=unclassified into something else (e.g., highway=pedestrian)? I’m thinking in this case, even though it is a pedestrian zone, it would be wrong to change because buses and taxis are allowed at all times (and does really look like a regular street).
Yes, both loading and cyclists, otherwise it would say something like “except buses, cycles and taxis at all times”
The sign prohibits all vehicles by default, so motor_vehicle=no is wrong, as is an exception for just for loading by motor vehicles. Although it’s unlikely, a horse-drawn carriage is generally prohibited, but could make a delivery between 18:00-10:00.
Although the sign in question is TSRGD Diagram 618.3B “Entry to, and waiting in, a pedestrian zone restricted”, but from your description highway=unclassified might be a better fit.
The current tags also include foot=yes, which isn’t needed and psv=yes which is incorrect (it frequently gets misused as if it meant bus+taxi).
If the sign also has a yellow panel at the bottom prohibiting parking, you might also want to tag that along with the loading/delivery exception.
as a cyclist - which I am - I interpret it as cycling=yes. It is so unclear that my interpretation is as good as anybody elses. I argue that the principal separation is caused by the ‘&’, cycling relates to the first clause and is an afterthought which is why it is phrased so badly.
If I was cycling on my own and I encountered the sign, I might be inclined to exploit the potential ambiguity. If I were using a routing service, I might not be too pleased if I were sent that way and got fined (particularly if they’re misusing a PSPO, because I’d be fined more than a motorist who was caught on camera and got a PCN in the post).
Hopefully the actual traffic order is online somewhere, although a very quick search on The Gazette didn’t find it.
I forgot to add in my OP, is delivery the right value? Or should it be loading? I’m assuming delivery is intended to also included pick-up, in the same way that loading also includes unloading. So perhaps the two are interchangeable?
Yeah, I couldn’t find a TRO for it on the highway authority (Worcestershire County Council) website either. It’s a bit annoying because I think some of the other roads around there aren’t tagged quite right either (e.g., Angel Place)
Right. I genuinely stood there for a good minute or so trying to figure out whether cycling was permitted
Annoyingly, I didn’t see this sign myself so can’t use it for tagging but Google maps shows a sign on Angel Place which says:
Pedestrian
ZONE
No vehicles
Except cycling
& loading
6 pm - 10 am
which is amusing because this time there’s no exception for buses or taxis, yet there’s a bus and taxi rank in the road in the StreetView image
It’s still a bit confusing as to whether cycling is always allowed, or whether it’s only allowed in the specified time. But this time, there’s also a second “No cycling” sign which has 10 am - 6pm underneath it. Which makes me think it’s the same for Angel Street (i.e., cycling prohibited except between 6pm and 10am).
Should be covered by vehicle=no as bicycle ⊆ vehicle
It’s delivery for OSM access tagging, “loading” is the term in UK traffic law (and includes unloading), just like destination is tagged when “access” is signed.
A lot of councils like even their permanent TROs to be displayed in a locked filing cabinet, in a disused lavatory, with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the Leopard” (tagged as hazard:animal=leopard).
From a foreigner’s perspective, both the visual sign and its accompanying text appear rather clear to me:
NO vehicles of any kind EXCEPT xxx at all times AND xxx 6pm-10am.
I’d be the devil’s policeperson’s advocate for a moment and ask it from their perspective:
Why would “Except taxis & buses at all times” be interpreted as meaning both taxis and buses, but “and cycling & loading 6 pm - 10 am” be interpreted as separate cycling and loading declarations?
I think you’re right (and the other evidence I’ve found backs this up) but the confusion comes from the fact that an ampersand (“&”) is entirely interchangeable with “and”. Neither carries any special meaning distinct from each other. Therefore the text could be read as:
“No vehicles except taxis and buses (at all times) and cycling and loading 6pm-10pm.”
This is a little more ambiguous. When read like this, the time limit could appear to apply to just the loading part and cycling has just been added as an afterthought in the middle.
The other thing to bare in mind is that it’s pretty unusual to restrict cyclists in this way. It seems odd to restrict bikes if buses and taxis, which present a far more dangerous threat to pedestrians than cyclists, can use the road at any time. Usually cyclists would be included in the total exemption.
But, again, I think you are correct and I’m going to update the tagging as suggested by Robert. I’ve also gotten in touch with a local cycling guru from Worcester to see if they can help with the tagging of other streets.
If cycling was allowed at all times would they not have used a “pedestrian & cycle zone” sign, “no motor vehicles” instead of “pedestrian zone, no vehicles”?
