Ok, I can accept:
- access=no
- foot=yes
- bicycle=yes
- mofa=yes
- moped=yes
1 Like
Ich würde ja sagen, dass ein Poller in der Regel mehrspurige Fahrzeuge sperrt. Und Pferde können dort definitiv auch durch, selbst schon gemacht 
Aber wir haben ja immer noch kein anerkanntes Tagging dafür.
2 Likes
access=no should be avoided because it tends to exclude more than what is intended because positive tags like horse=yes or snowmobile=yes are forgotten. In your tagging suggestion there is for example motorcycle=yes missing
since 26. April 2009 it was written:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:barrier%3Dbollard&oldid=261798
Solid (usually concrete or metal) pillar or pillars in the middle of the road to prevent passage by some traffic.
How to Map
Simply add the tag barrier=bollard to the node where the bollard is.
By default access=no foot=yes bicycle=yes is implied. So tag who can pass the node.
I’m not sure we can assume that motorcycles and snowmobiles fit in all cases already been mapped.
It will depend on the maxwidth:physical.
For “implies” we should, I think, choose logic (mofa/moped is as wide as a bicycle/pedestrian) and the most likely option. For the most likely option I had a look at that using Taginfo and a python script counting things based on a planet file and osmium:
628416 bollards
foot : yes=173435 (98.2%), designated=1362, no=1274, permissive=276, private=118, customers=96, other=41
bicycle : yes=150778 (94.6%), no=6699, designated=962, dismount=535, permissive=272, customers=73, other=129
motor_vehicle : no=36462 (88.0%), private=2230, permit=651, yes=516, destination=494, permissive=407, other=651
access : no=9640 (61.7%), yes=2517, private=1725, permissive=653, permit=344, destination=275, other=472
horse : yes=9717 (65.4%), no=4824, permissive=90, unknown=78, designated=62, private=32, other=52
wheelchair : yes=5019 (79.1%), no=1071, limited=235, designated=17, other=4
motorcycle : yes=3508 (65.7%), no=1774, permissive=30, destination=21, designated=5, unknown=2, other=2
motorcar : no=3508 (91.0%), yes=207, private=86, destination=22, permissive=22, official=3, other=8
vehicle : no=2861 (81.7%), private=229, yes=221, destination=54, permit=43, delivery=30, other=62
mofa : yes=1960 (93.2%), no=117, designated=16, permissive=4, private=2, unknown=1, other=3
moped : yes=1789 (89.6%), no=171, designated=27, permissive=2, y=2, private=2, other=3
bus : yes=247 (88.8%), designated=15, no=11, permit=2, only=2, private=1
psv : yes=184 (86.0%), no=23, designated=5, bus=2
speed_pedelec : yes=140 (96.6%), designated=4, no=1
hgv : no=110 (80.9%), destination=7, delivery=6, permissive=6, yes=5, private=2
goods : no=56 (60.2%), yes=16, destination=8, permissive=5, delivery=5, private=2, other=1
agricultural : yes=44 (62.9%), no=24, private=2
boat : no=53 (100.0%)
taxi : yes=21 (55.3%), no=16, designated=1
car : no=26 (74.3%), yes=9
dog : yes=13 (65.0%), no=4, leashed=3
double_tracked_motor_vehicle : no=16 (100.0%)
food : yes=16 (100.0%)
tourist_bus : no=15 (100.0%)
small_electric_vehicle : yes=12 (85.7%), dismount=2
inline_skates : no=9 (81.8%), yes=1, designated=1
disabled : yes=6 (54.5%), designated=2, no=2, other=1
trailerbike : yes=11 (100.0%)
hov : no=9 (100.0%)
forestry : yes=8 (100.0%)
carriage : no=5 (62.5%), yes=2, forestry=1
stroller : yes=6 (75.0%), no=2
golf_cart : yes=3 (50.0%), private=3
disabled_vehicle : yes=5 (100.0%)
mtb : yes=4 (100.0%)
ambulance : yes=4 (100.0%)
4wd_only : no=4 (100.0%)
ski : yes=4 (100.0%)
tram : yes=4 (100.0%)
motorbike : yes=2 (66.7%), permissive=1
truck : no=3 (100.0%)
cargo_bike : no=2 (66.7%), yes=1
snowmobile is not mapped in combination with barrier=bollard so I see no good reason to include it in the list of implies.
1 Like
Maybe we should just remove from the wiki that barrier=bollard implies some access that we can be sure of.
I was thinking the same. If access isn’t tagged, then for many of these modes of transport it just implies that access is unknown.
If the main goal is to tell mappers what to tag explicitly, then as soon as you say a bollard implies yes or no you are asking mappers to consider all of these modes of transport every time they add a bollard. For each of them, they then have to make a decision whether or not to override the implied default. I can’t see this working, they would have to read the Wiki page that documents the implied defaults, and also know enough about speed pedelecs and horse-drawn carriages and golf carts to make that decision.
This is not a problem we can solve. You will never know if the data is complete or correct.
A missing bollard is a bigger problem than one with some missing access tags.
We need a hint for the data consumers, what they could expect at a bollard. And we need a hint for the mappers, what they should have a look on. And yes, the space between the bollards is much more helpful than tagging each single traffic mode
2 Likes
I like the default of “access=no” for ALL barrier types as it makes tagging very explicit. These “implicit” rules make it very hard for data cosumers to get right.
So typically i add foot=yes/bicycle=yes to bollards as i assume access=no beeing the one and only default for barriers.
Flo
what about barrier=entrance?
I do not like the idea of access=no for all barriers, because it requires to tag all access modes explicitly while for many the barrier is a physical one and tagging it with tags for legal prescriptions is not ideal.
That’s basically my argument:
If you document that bollard implies mode_of_transport=yes or no, you are suggesting that we have more detailed data than we do.
If you don’t document anything, or just document that bollard implies mode_of_transport=unknown, you are saying to mappers, map anything you know explicitly, whether it’s a yes or a no, and to data consumers that they have to do their own research and make their own assumptions and cannot reliably infer access for niche modes of transport from any implied defaults.
2 Likes
Ja eben. horse-Tagging fehlt aber in der Regel. Bei Fahrrädern haben wir eine breite Spanne (Zweirad mit und ohne Anhänger, Dreirad, Liegerad, Lastenrad,…) Die access-Taggerei ist nicht nur fehleranfällig sondern widerspricht dem, dass access-Tags rechtliche Einschränkungen wiedergeben sollen.
Aus meiner Sicht ist ein sauberes Tagging nur durch Angabe der maximal möglichen Breite (maxwidth:physical) sinnvoll. Das entspricht auch am meisten der OTG-Regel.
1 Like
So… does moped=yes on a bollard mean that mopeds can fit past, physically, or that they can fit past and are allowed?
I often see bollards on cycle paths where mopeds would fit past but aren’t allowed. It’s not clear to me if yes or no would be correct in that case. Both don’t really make sense to me.
Haben Poller eine rechtliche Aussage? Ich denke eher nicht, sie sind wenn eher eine physische Verhinderung von dem was nicht erlaubt ist, oder? Aber das trifft auf viele Barrieren zu, die keine Verkehrszeichen sind.
2 Likes
I am pretty sure all (except maybe a few) mappers assume foot=yes and bicycle=yes without looking on the Wiki. Then using only plain logic, also mofa/moped/speed_pedelec=yes are implied because they are the same width. A motorcycle is probably marginally wider so I would also add motorcycle=yes.
It is probably good to not that most bollards access rights are redundant because the either not part of a way (stand_alone + no_highway, 36.2%) or that the (default) access rights for the way are the most restrictive access rights (footway+pedestrian+cycleway = 32.9%).
631579 bollards, 451270 ways, 206489 bollards without way
58029 bollards on transitions
stand_alone : 206489 32.7%
footway : 133531 21.1%
path : 81705 12.9%
service : 51460 8.1%
cycleway : 45625 7.2%
pedestrian : 28789 4.6%
residential : 28777 4.6%
no_highway : 22270 3.5%
track : 16832 2.7%
living_street : 7307 1.2%
other : 8794 1.4
1 Like
Denke ich auch. Was anderes ist es wenn ein Verkehrszeichen am Poller steht. Dann würde ich aber die access Tags an den way taggen und nicht an den Poller:
3 Likes
Anfangs dachte ich noch, ich hätte eine simle Frage gestellt, die mit wenig diskussion einfach beantwortet und das Problem gelößt werden kann.
Je mehr ich hier mitlese, desto mehr sehe ich die Impliziten Zugangsbeschränkungen an Pollern kritisch. Tags wie access=yes/no, foot=yes/no regeln wie bereits erwähnt juristische zugangsbedingungen. Ein Poller ohne Verkehrszeichen schränkt in Deutschland so weit ich weiß juristisch nichts ein. So lange es physisch passt, darf ich mir meinem Fahrrad, Schneemobil, Auto, LKW, Reisebuss, Gabelstapler oder Mähdrescher an jedem Poller vorbei - vorausgesetzt ich darf den Weg unter dem Poller überhaupt befahren. Wie sieht das in anderen Ländern aus?
Das sehe ich auch so. Wenn man nichts implizit annimmt, wäre der Poller auf dem Bild streng genomen so wie jeder andere Poller access=yes. Lediglich der Weg hat eine Beschränkung auf Fußgänger, Fahrradfahrer und Mofas.
Wäre es sinnvoll, einen Wertebereich für maxwidth:physical=* an Pollern implizit anzunehmen? Grob geschätzt würde ich sagen, neben so einem Poller ist in den Meisten Fällen mehr als 1m (genug Platz für ein Fahrrad) aber weniger als 1,5m (zu wenig Platz für ein Auto).
Wäre es sinnvoll, einen Wertebereich für
maxwidth:physical=*an Pollern implizit anzunehmen?
vielleicht, das ist eine Frage die sich die Datenkonsumenten stellen müssen.
1 Like
To see if there is consensus I did create a Poll:
1 Like