Proposal talk:Maxspeed walk
- I agree with this proposal. This value can be very useful I think S.A.L. 21:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
not only implicit
Some have voted against with a comment "value that is implicit", yet this can be usable for other highways than living_street, which is the only highway type with an implicit maxspeed=walk (in some countries, presumably). Alv 06:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Is'n it more explicit to tag maxspeed=DE:living_street? Routing-programs can fetch usable values from OSM_tags_for_routing/Maxspeed --Phobie 17:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
- I updated the proposal page to reflect this. --Kslotte 15:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
USA, Germany
A quick question: as there's apparently quite a lot more textual traffic signs that side of the Atlantic, than in Europe, has anyone seen there a sign effectively stating "maxspeed walk"? (Other countries too?) Alv 06:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- For reference, in the UK you often get signs instructing drivers to "proceed at walking pace", though these are generally in service yards, schools, etc. (i.e. not on the public roads). I too would like to know if this is common in any parts of the US outside of such locations. Chriscf 09:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- In Germany, you sometimes see "Schritt fahren" ("drive at walking speed") signs like this one on private property (parking lots, industrial areas etc., but they are not official. I found this page which claims that "Schritt fahren" is an official sign (additional sign 2101), but I'm not sure if that's correct. --Head 15:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
first voting: draw
(proposalDate=2008-08-15|rfcStartDate=2008-08-16|voteStartDate=2008-09-16|voteEndDate=2008-10-21)
I approve this proposal. --Cbm 12:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)- I approve this proposal, useful information, but only where it is not implied by highway value. --Tordanik17:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Beebop 00:07, 07 October 2008 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal, because it breaks the intended use of the maxspeed tag, and leaves us with a value that cannot be used by automated tools for any useful purpose. Chriscf 11:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)- I oppose this proposal, to much work required for a value that is implicit (living street). --Dspies 18:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal, For the reasons pointed out above. If it's not on a living street, just set a reasonable limit. Xeen 21:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. MrJott 09:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal, see Dspies. Rramthun 11:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal, no reason for an extra value that is implicit (living street).--De muur 14:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- maybe it's implicit in living_streets, but it's not implicit for e.g. highway=footway bicycle=yes
- I approve this proposal, for the cases where it is not implicit. --Schuetzm 18:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. where it is not implicit --Birgit Nietsch 14:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. where it is not implicit Alv 06:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Voting closed after 5 weeks. With only two net votes in favour, this is rejected. Chriscf 11:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, look at the date at the top of the page. Today is still open for votes. --Eimai 16:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Approve Approve when it's not implicit "Methinks it's always implicit" Reject 2 5 3 2
- Since the three who never told what they'd do when it's not implicit never said it in the rfc-phase and nobody adjusted the proposal, someone might make a modified proposal for using this only when it's not implicit - that is for any other highway than a living_street. And in the end only the usage matters, so far only 22 found in Europe with tagwatch. (I personally haven't encountered such signs...)Alv 12:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- 2+5=7 "approve". 2+3=5 "oppose". Best case 7-5=2 net votes in favour. Worst case, 2/3 of the votes are not entirely clear to go either way. Frame that any way you like and you still won't get a clear approval. Chriscf 14:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming that this vote be "interpreted" some other way, but that it's a guide to what was wrong with it should someone have the need to make a better proposal. Had the proposal been with other wording ("this is to be used only when it's not implicit") the three could have voted yes (the absence of that criteria was their motivation for opposing, as per their comment) or have abstained from voting. That would be 9 to 2 or 7 to 2; and anyways, per the guidelines, voting could have been extended until 15 votes were acquired. Alv 14:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- There's nothing in the guidelines which requires that 15 votes are acquired. They say that a feature cannot be approved without 8 unanimous support votes or a clear majority out of at least 15. Either way, if someone wants to pursue this, they need a less ambiguous proposal. Chriscf 15:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming that this vote be "interpreted" some other way, but that it's a guide to what was wrong with it should someone have the need to make a better proposal. Had the proposal been with other wording ("this is to be used only when it's not implicit") the three could have voted yes (the absence of that criteria was their motivation for opposing, as per their comment) or have abstained from voting. That would be 9 to 2 or 7 to 2; and anyways, per the guidelines, voting could have been extended until 15 votes were acquired. Alv 14:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- 2+5=7 "approve". 2+3=5 "oppose". Best case 7-5=2 net votes in favour. Worst case, 2/3 of the votes are not entirely clear to go either way. Frame that any way you like and you still won't get a clear approval. Chriscf 14:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Legal definition
Are there any legal definitions of "walking speed" (de: Schrittgeschwindigkeit)? -- MapFlea 13:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
| ISO sign | Country | km/h | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AT | Austria | 5 | OGH (Austrian Supreme Court) Decision as of 2007-03-23, No. 2Ob262/05a, search for "Schrittgeschwindigkeit" |
why not just set maxspeed=5
Why not just set maxspeed=5? If it's for routing software that should be good enough. Norpan 21:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- because it's simply not correct everywhere. e.g. in Germany walking pace means a zone from 4 to <20. OSM is data, not only for routing issue ;) --Cbm 07:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
the Netherlands
In the Netherlands, walkingspeed is an official speed. It's called "stapvoets" (at a footpace). Every living street has a walkingspeed speedlimit. And sometimes they put the words "stapvoets rijden" on a sign, near schools etc. Stapvoets is 15 km/h max. - Pauluzz 20:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- then you should use maxspeed=walk instead of inventing some kind of nueral speed. At least on the default-speed-wikipage. --Cbm 22:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Use the maxspeed page
Because walking speed deffer very much I propose that country specific walking speeds are filled in at OSM_tags_for_routing/Maxspeed and then filled manually as numbers into OSM. I find maxspeed=walk is very vague and hard to interpret by routing software. --Kslotte 17:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Allow routing tools to adapt maximum speed based on utilized means of transportation
I support implementing a common textual maximum speed value, because the actual numeric maximum speed depends on circumstances, particularly the utilized means of transportation:
- An inexperienced bicyclist may need to ride at 10 km / h to maintain balance. A motor vehicle has no difficulties to go as slow as 5 km / h.
- Horses are usually not equipped with a speedometers 😉, hence it depends on the rider’s capability in commanding the horse.
- A boat in a no wake zone may only go as fast as producing minimal wake, in general 5 kts tops.
This arbitrarily low speed limit (called “walking speed” or “no wake zone”) has one defining feature: It shall minimize risk to other users of the same way. You will necessarily need to adapt to the used vehicle. A bicyclist crashing into a pedestrian is far less lethal than a loaded truck, hence the truck has a reasonably lower “walking speed” than a “speeding” bicyclist will need to observe.
I think routing tools should be able to adapt to this circumstance. Since a numeric value will be misinterpreted as a definite universally defined speed limit for all users, a textual value, e. g. low, idle, minimum or walk, would be adequate. ‑‑ K (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)