[Tagging] Ferry routes, what's the correct approach?

David ``Smith'' vidthekid at gmail.com
Wed Aug 1 05:22:36 BST 2012

I think access=fee, or access=yes + fee=yes would be appropriate.  How do
access=fee compare with access=customers in existing usage? (I tried to
look it up myself on tagwatch, but my phone didn't like it much)
On Jul 31, 2012 5:59 PM, "Georg Feddern" <osm at bavarianmallet.de> wrote:

> Am 31.07.2012 22:50, schrieb LM_1:
>> Not knowing how different routers use access I believe that ways
>> marked as access=customers should be routed with some sort of warning.
>> The same goes for access=private. Quite commonly the real final
>> destination would be in some limited access area and so routers do not
>> have to absolutely avoid more restrictive access values than public.
> Quite commonly the ferry would not be the real final destination - but in
> the middle of the route.
> Routers commonly do not use more restrictive access values in the middle
> of a route ...
> access=customer may be also parking places with bothside access.
> access=private may be also big company areas with bothside access.
> Commonly routers shall not use those - so why should they use them at
> ferry terminals?
> You may have to pay a "fee" to access, but I would call this a public
> traffic route.
> In particular if there is no other possible route.
> As long as there is no other easy way I would "tag for routers" in this
> case.
> Georg
> ______________________________**_________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20120801/64d38ad3/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list