Proposal talk:Traffic Calming

Discussion

• Would the maxspeed tag not be sufficeint? As you shouldnt be going more than it, and speed bumps 'should' allow you to go up to this speed?. The speed bumps could also be mapped in by tagging nodes, or making adjectent segments to the road where nessesery. Ben. 18:13 18th Decemeber 2006

"speed bumps 'should' allow you to go up to this speed" - yeah, but they don't. The ones outside our house wreck your car if you go over them at more than 15mph. (It's a 30mph B-road.) Agreed that tagging nodes would be a good way to do it. --Richard 18:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is no. Speed bumps are designed to reduce the speed down to what is considered to be safe for the area or to discourage the use of the road as rat run, this means that they require you to drive at a speed much less than the maxspeed for the road as a whole. For instance Weston Way in Baldock is designated as a tertiary road and has a speed limit of 30mph, however if you hit speed bumps in this road at anything over 5-10mph you are likely to either damage your suspension or ground your car. This is also major problem for some performace cars where speed bumps can actually ground the car and damage the floorpan. In actual fact there was an error made when they put the speed bumps on Whitehill Road in Hitchin as they grounded the buses and caused so much damage that the bus routes were altered until the council shaved the tops off the bumps. I also don't want to limit it to speed bumps, we also have some width restrictions in our area which again act as a choke point forcing traffic to slow to a walking pace on a road with a 30mph speed limit -- Batchoy 20:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• This could work but if its just a node it will significantly increase the amount of nodes on some routes as there is often not one speed bump but more. Also shouldn't other traffic calming measures like chicanes be rendered diffrently and could be nodes. Ksbrown^talk 19:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps a way-property might be more appropriate as a first piece of data (traffic_calming=yes on the way, maybe make it crosshatched or something), maybe going into specifying the location of each chicane and speed bump later on? Morwen 11:59, 29 March 2007 (BST)

• I agree that a way-property would be better, otherwise we would be marking each chicane, sleeping policeman or speed cushion. This extra data would take too long to gather. If there is only one chicane on the entrance to a village for example, a node property would be better compared to a way. I would also recommend having a description on the type of traffic calming. Chicanes can be a problem for larger vehicles to get around. Sleeping policeman (full width hump) can be a problem for buses, which is why speed cushions are used on bus routes.

• I agree about having a way for these things, but also I would prefer to add them for what they actually are, rather than just an =yes tag. It takes no longer to note what something is, if you note that its there. Maybe a new key for traffic calming features isn't nessesery, but rather a key just for features/obsticals for things that lie along a route. More usable then. Ben 23:33, 12 June 2007 (BST)

• I agree, I think the proposed barriers key would suit this proposal fine. Thewanderer 09:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Over here[tm], traffic calming is usually used to enforce the legal speed limit. You'd expect some green islands or bends in the cities, speed bumps in residential areas (maxspeed=30) and serious obstacles at maxspeed=7. Shouldn't this technically be covered by the maxspeed tags? I am not necessarily opposing the proposal, but I think that it does not add vital information to the map. -- Relet 09:42, 13 June 2007 (BST)

• Max_speed is for tagging the legal maximum speed, not the estimated maximum speed, or advised maximum speed. The more lazy way would just be to tag a way as having traffic calming on it, but I think people should be able to add this detail if they wish. Ben 16:50, 13 June 2007 (BST)
• If you were to drive at the speed limit over many of the speed bumps in the areas I've lived, you'd kill your car's suspension very quickly. I believe that road humps need to be added. Perhaps a compromise between tagging nodes for each location would be to tag the way with traffic_calming=bumps bumps=6 for a road with six speed bumps. There's probably a better way to tag this, but you get the idea - put the number of bumps into the data for a way. For those of us with a pathalogical hatred of speed bumps (probably all of us with lower polluting cars with tiny wheels, and others who have very low-slung cars) it would be highly desirable to be able to route to minimize the number of speed humps traversed. This data would allow routing programs to incorporate this functionality. On the other hand, care would be needed to avoid duplicating the number if a way is split, eg to add a bridge. Chicanes might be useful to HGV drivers as mentioned. I would suggest these are added at nodes as they are usually less frequent than humps. However, the same scheme could be used with giving the number per way. Daveemtb 08:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• how about we allow them to be applied to ways or nodes? if they're applied to a way, the whole way is hatched or something - enough to say "there are traffic calming measures on this road, somewhere". if a mapper wants to locate each individual one, then a node is tagged as well, and an icon then renders at that specific point? Myfanwy 21:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• For an example of a mapping provider that already has this information, see Glenrosa Rd here: [1], personally I think marking every speed bump is the easiest approach, especially when it comes to showing it in the renderer.

absolutely, but options are good. for example, say i want to map my area - i consider it important to include the roads that have speed bumps, but i might not want to do include the lcoation of every single one striaght from the start, instead preferring to come back later when the important features are mapped. this gives me that flexibility, at very little cost Myfanwy 22:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that having both options is a good idea - same as node (quick) vs. area (detailed) for a lot of other features - Ulfl 02:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• As a none native speaker it's hard to get an idea of cushion and alike without a dictionary. Could someone add photos to clarify? - Ulfl 02:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You can see some pictures of speed cushion here Thewanderer 09:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• There should be a tag for both bumps and humps. Bumps are shorter and more jarring, whereas humps are much longer and much easier on your suspension. Andrewpmk 09:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

yep, done. the link provided by the wanderer is very informative. have also added rumble strips and speed table on the basis of it. Myfanwy 22:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please allow also traffic_calming=yes/no/User defined. Robx 07:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• If this is approved, why is it not showing up on any of the rendering maps of OSM. And why does the validator for JOSM not allow traffic_calming? --Startail 18:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)