[Tagging] Is highway=service, service=drive_thru a good idea?

[Anthony]

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Matthias Julius <lists at julius-net.net>wrote:

> Eugene Alvin Villar <seav80 at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 1:10 AM, Pieren <pieren3 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I have indeed tagged a couple of these, using "highway=service,
> >>> service=drive-through, access=private, oneway=yes".
> >>>
> >>>
> >> highway=service + oneway=yes + access=destination
> >>
> >> Pieren
> >>
> >
> > An explicit tag would be better since routers can then let the user
> filter
> > for fast food restaurants that have drive-throughs and then route them to
> > the selected drive-through entrance appropriately.
>
> Whether or not a restaurant (or pharmacy, or bank, or whatever) has a
> drive-through should be a property of the restaurant and not of the
> street, IMO.
>

Yeah, but then how do you route the person to the proper entrance?  Sounds
like a job for a relation, really.  But so far I've been too lazy to map
that much detail.

And I still don't like access=destination.  If access=destination means "a
privately owned road which should only be used for access to a building,
motorway service station, beach, campsite, industrial estate, business park,
etc" then access=destination is already implied by highway=service.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20100412/26e53521/attachment.html>