Proposal talk:Key:winter service

Topic 1

please proceed with this proposal. Many people are missing it --SunCobalt 07:20, 10 June 2012‎

snowplowing

See also Key:snowplowing (>24.000x used). Don't know, if it's the same? But winter_service sounds better for me. -- MasiMaster 23:17, 11 June 2012 (BST)

It looks like the same, but I also think winter_service souds much better. --HostedDinner 08:28, 10 August 2012 (BST)

Winter service is more general, from salting and gritting to snowplowing. Some ways are snowplowed, but not gritted, and others vice versa, or both. Alv 17:58, 10 August 2012 (BST)

In Gothenburg, Sweden we have some walking paths with signs "this way has no winter service" (sv:Denna väg vinterunderhålles ej"), meaning that they will not shovel away the snow and not spread gravel or salt on it. This tag would be natural to stick to those ways. /Johan Jönsson 21:39, 10 August 2012 (BST)

Not sure we need a new tag when we already have the snowplowing tag. Personally, i dont see much need for tags for gritting and salting. User:Tractor, 16 July 2015.

winter_service=no/limited

Moin,

bei uns im Mittelgebirge werden einzelne Straßen in Ortschaften kaum geräumt, können dennoch befahren werden (durch gefestigte Schneedecke), wobei es auch Ortsverbindungsstrecken gibt, die von der Räumung gänzlich ausgeschlossen sind. Wie soll man beide unterscheiden? --CMartin 11:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Kaum geräumt wäre winter_service=limited, die von der Räumung ausgeschlossenen winter_service=no. Ist meine Annahme korrekt, dass letztere bei Schneefall und ohne Räumung nicht zu befahren sind? -- malenki 20:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ich denke, dass ist eher eine rechtliche Frage.

Kein Winterdienst bedeutet, dass man die Straße nutzen darf und je nach Wetterlage und Schneehöhe selbst einschätzen muss ob man sie befährt oder nicht. Manchmal werden die Straßen gesperrt wenn z.B. Schneeverwehungen im weiteren Verlauf die Straße blockieren. Das wäre navigationstechnisch dann wie ein Unfall oder eine Baustelle zu behandeln.

Eingeschränkter Winterdienst heißt, es wird nur sporadisch und minimal geräumt, z.B. wenn Kapazität da ist. Sich darauf verlassen oder es gar einklagen darf man es nicht. Hadhuey 10:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

winter_service=yes

I suggest not to make winter_service=yes an implicit value. In areas where snowfalls are sporadic or road service inconsistent, the implicit value would rather be winter_service=limited. Better make no implicit assumption. --Kaitu 13:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding winter servicing I know only my region well enough to know the details. At least can we agree that winter_service=no is a combination worth using? -- malenki 21:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say all combination are worth using, when the correct value is known. I just suggest not to assume any default value for generic roads (maybe a default value could be set for specific regions or road types).--Kaitu 14:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's best to assume default values (could be different default values for different countries though). Here in Norway almost all roads open to motorized traffic are serviced in winter. It would be stupid to tag them all with winter_service=*. User:Tractor, 16 July 2015.

opening hours

Hi,

Please follow the line of the tagging and uses the tag opening_hours=*. you can use it with hour, day, week, month or a combination of all of them. It is not only for shops. You can also use it on streets or anything else. Smarties 13:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Which opening_hours value should be used for roads which have a seasonal opening which is not fixed, but depends on snow thickness and weather conditions? For example a mountain pass which is made unaccessible at some time during winter, and is not reopened until it gets maintainable again. That is, winter_service=yes while the road is maintainable, and winter_service=no and vehicle access blocked when the road is asessed no more maintainable.--Kaitu 13:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Kaitu said it well, I can't add much except: no one can predict the exact times of snow fall. If you want to map times when winter servicing occurs: I neither plan nor want to map such details. There is such a thing like too much information. :) -- malenki 21:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding tags to account for responsibility and subcontractors?

In Sweden the state department for roads Trafikverket has the responsibility for major roads and hands out Public-Private contracts to subcontractors. Every municipality has the responsibility for all local roads and often also hands out Public-Private contracts to subcontractors.

I suggest we add winter_service=resposible, winter_service=subcontractor or something like this in the proposal to cover this.

What do you think?--PangoSE (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

These tags in the proposed form don't seem compatible with the existing values. I would (if I wanted to tag this) use something like winter_service:operator=name of the company or winter_service:operator:type=subcontractor (just quick adhoc examples to give an idea) --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The idea is sound. Perhaps winter_service:operator=* would be a good tag? I wonder if a separate responsible key is needed; isn't the operator=* also responsible for arranging the winter service? --ZeiP (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me with winter_service:operator=* and :type after to specify subcontractor :). ZeiP, will you implement this in the proposal and restart the voting?--PangoSE (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Skinfaxi's comment in voting

(Copied from voting list to the discussion page to discuss.) --ZeiP (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not see that their is any world standart. Depending on the country you live in and your expecationen you will consider that a road that has winterservice engaged will have "no" winterservices for same personens while a unploage road can have winterservice "yes" for a person that is used to drive on winterroads in rural countries.reason --Skinfaxi (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If I understood correctly, your concern is about verifiability and the fact that different people as well as weather that can affect very differently on different years makes verifying the tag difficult. I do agree with this. In practice there's of course no way any longer road can be maintained well enough in a severe weather for an inexperienced driver to find it easy (or possible) to drive. However, I still think the tag is a good compromise, since it is still valuable information: For example for the locals to know if the road probably has a one meter bed of snow on top of the road or if it's at least tried to be kept in at least a reasonable driving condition.

Furthermore, our other highway tags aren't perfectly precise either; a highway=secondary might have very much damage that makes driving for a certain driver or car difficult; a lighting can be quite dim or almost like daylight etc. --ZeiP (talk) 09:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)