Proposal:Moped access
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
The proposal Moped access was built without a vote and the tagging is widely established based on this proposal. The Feature Page for the proposal Moped access is located at Key:moped. |
| moped access | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Inactive (inactive) |
| Proposed by: | Tsok |
| Tagging: | moped=* |
| Applies to: | linear |
| Definition: | Indicate whether moped (very light motorcycle) access is allowed or not. |
| Statistics: |
|
| Draft started: | |
| Proposed on: | 2007-09-23 |
Rationale
In Finland mopeds are defined as 2-wheeled very light motorcycles with a maximum speed of 45 km/h and maximum engine size of 50 cm³. A real motorcycle/car driving license isn't required to operate one, but in Finland young people have to take a short course to get a moped driving license (M-class). I imagine similar definitions are used in other countries as well?
Anyway in Finland mopeds are sometimes allowed to drive on foot/cycleways, sometimes not. This is signaled with traffic signs and the data should be available on maps as well for routing purposes. Mopeds are never allowed to drive on motorways and they should use the shoulder of the road, if available, when driving on other roads. See Moped for some definitions of a moped.
Applies to
- Ways
Tags
A footway (or cycleway) where you can drive a moped:
<tag k="highway" v="footway" /> <tag k="moped" v="yes" />
Default, if the tag is missing from a footway/cycleway, could be no access, or not known. Default for roads smaller than motorways should be yes.
Comments
- Sounds good. It would join the car, foot, bicycle, bus=yes/no family. FYI, definition is similiar in the UK, up to 49 cc as I recall. The situation is similar in Sweden, mopeds seem to be able to ride on most footpath / cycleways unless specifically prohibited by signs. MikeCollinson 17:37, 23 September 2007 (BST)
- In the Netherlands, there are so-called "bromfietspaden". Essentially, these are shared moped-cycleways. I've come across such a way during mapping and thought of "scooter=yes/no/.." but after a discussion on talk-nl I believe moped is the better option. --Benbono 23:29, 23 September 2007 (BST)
- Sounds good. In Germany we have the "Autostraße" that are not marked in any map but where these 50ccm scooters cannot drive. We where already discussing this issue on the german map-features page without a conclusion yet. --MarcusWolschon 05:03, 24 September 2007 (BST)
- I'd prefer to see this as part of the access: namespace proposal. --Hawke 21:47, 24 September 2007 (BST)
- I like the namespace idea (didn't see it first because it isn't linked from the access-section of the parent wiki page). Access tags should definitely be in their own namespace. Anyway that's semantics, so I guess we could consider this page as a general yes/no discussion to the idea of having any kind of moped access tags. Tsok 05:20, 25 September 2007 (BST)
- In Belgium, mopeds are divided in two different classes: A (maximum speed 25km/h, no driver's license needed) and B (maximum speed 45km/h, driver's license needed), with different rules for them (class B not always allowed to follow a cycleway for example like class A, or roads where class B isn't allowed and A is, or where B can't drive in the opposite direction in a one-way road and A can. Anyone an idea how that could be solved? --Eimai 12:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- In The Netherlands, we have such a distinction as well. The faster 45 km/h generally can't use cycleways in built-up areas, where the slower 25 km/h ones can. --Ldp 21:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- In germany we have to classes Mofas (max 25km/h) and Mopeds (max 50km/h). Mopeds must always drive on a street, but Mofas can drive on e.g. cycleways when an extra sign allows this. --Marco.horstmann 16:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to propose mofa=* for moped-light: "Mofa" in Germany, moped class A in Belgium, "Snorfiets" in The Netherlands. Such a verhicle is sometimes treated differently from a regular/"real" moped, so one access category is not enough. It is not a real bicycle either. For example in The Netherlands, mofas can (must) ride on regular cycleways where mopeds are not allowed, but they are not allowed on optional cycleways (unless the engine is turned off). --Cjw 21:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- usage in Belgium is "moped_A" and "moped_B", and "moped" includes those two categories. What's the relationship between "moped" and "mofa" in the Netherlands then? --Eimai 17:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- The classes seem to be the same in several countries, just the names are different. In the Netherlands a "snorfiets" (=belgian moped A, =german mofa) is treated like a bicycle in all cases except one. A "bromfiets" (=belgian moped B, = german moped/kleinkraftrad), however is often directed to car lanes in towns/cities. Is it different in Belgium? A moped category including both vehicle types could be nice for roads where neither is allowed, but is it needed? It also requires finding an additional name while I already have enough trouble finding an appropriate name for "mofas". AFAICT "moped" quite universally means a motorized two-wheeled vehicle that is allowed to go 40-50km/h. So my proposal would mean for Belgium moped_A=>mofa and moped_B=>moped, if some rule applies to both, 2 tags would be needed. Anyway, the important thing is to have the same tags everywhere. --Cjw 19:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- is that really needed? It will provoke a lot of confusion, since a "snorfiets" is a "bromfiets" (that's why we call it bromfiets klasse A here), i.e. it's both moped. So you can't go around the current usage and understanding of the tag. Secondly, it's not necessary to have the exact same tags in each country. Belgium doesn't have a "hgv" class for example in the traffic code, so only "goods" should be used in tagging (and hgv is a synonym for goods now) (not discussing different driver's licenses here). So, moped_A and moped_B will be much easier for Belgian mappers to understand than trying to tell moped_B will now be moped (people will forget that it's only the B class, and it's just wrong in a logical point of view), and introduce a word no-one ever heard of "mofa". So the situation works nicely as it is now in Belgium, and there's no need to change it. If it needs to be adapted in the Netherlands, then discuss that with the Dutch user base, but don't try to enforce that new rule to other countries where it doesn't make sense. --Eimai 12:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)