Resolved note #3473632
Description
Southward from here, Wallnerstr. & Fahneng. form a 20 km/h encounter zone (Begegnungsz.). But in contrast to Rotenturmstr. etc., it is tagged as `highway=residential` instead of `=living_street`, so that e.g. the Standard map visualizes in a different shade. Encounter zones are a calming measure similar to living streets, but permit through traffic (& higher top speeds); so for a continuance, it would be best to definitively (also visually on traffic maps) differentiate between both in order to enable—algorithmic as well as visually guided—route planning with results conformable to law. But for now broad tagging consistence may be the aim.
- Created by anonymous
- Resolved by Kevin Kofler
- Location: 48.2098100, 16.3665700
This note includes comments from anonymous users which should be independently verified.
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |
Correct tagging for Begegnungszone is highway=residential + maxspeed=*. This has been discussed and voted for in the Talk-AT mailing list in Oct 2013.
PS: To make clear that it is a Begegnungszone, you can use shared_space=yes in addition to highway=residential.
In 2020, we agreed that living_street is the correct tagging, obsoleting the 2013 vote.
Actually, it was in November-December 2019. See https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=770375 – the vote was unanimous for living_street. The forum consensus was also mentioned on the mailing list in this RFC: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-at/2019-December/010423.html and got no objection, neither as a reply nor on the forum. To me, this is crystal clear consensus, and the 2013 vote is obsolete.
Tagging fixed according to community consensus (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/129953685) as suggested by this note. Thank you fkv for pointing me to the note and sorry that the outcome is not the one you wanted.