[Tagging] day_on / day_off question
Martijn van Exel
m at rtijn.org
Mon May 7 23:15:22 BST 2012
Thanks for providing your insights, Jørgen.
On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Jørgen Elgaard Larsen <jel at elgaard.net> wrote:
> Martijn van Exel wrote:
>> See my current try at this here:
> First of all, you should not use motor_vehicle=private. That does *not* mean
> private vehicles, but rather that motor vehicles are allowed "Only with
> permission of the owner on an individual basis"
Agreed, that's not the right choice then.
> Instead, I would suggest:
What would you do for the access= then? Nothing? And where does the
bicycle go? And why do you choose these types and not others whose
access is restricted?
> As for the date_off and date_on, you should use YYYY-MM-DD format.
> Otherwise, it will be impossible for a route planner to parse it. (Besides,
> not all non-USAnians know when Memorial Day is).
It's not on the same date every year, so that would make that impossible.
I guess anyone who would want to access this road would know, or be
prepared to find out, when Memorial Day is.
I believe it's the last Monday in May, btw.
> But note that date_on/date_off has the year in it, so it is not even meant
> to be used for periodic access. More like when a new road opens, or an old
> one is closed permanently.
> day_on/day_off seems only to allow week days, not odd/even/federal_holiday·
So this particular case could, as I understand it, not be covered by
the current temporal access restrictions scheme?
> There is an old proposed feature to use opening_hours syntax:
> but it seems to have been abandoned.
> Anyway, according to that scheme, it would be tagged as:
> motorcar:(PH 00:00-24:00;Jun 02-30/2 00:00-24:00;Jul 02-30/2 00:00-24:00;
> Aug 02-30/2 00:00-24:00; Sep 02-24/2 00:00-24:00)=yes
> bicycle:(Oct-May 00:00-24:00;Jun 01-30/2 00:00-24:00; Jul 01-31/2
> 00:00-24:00;Aug 01-30/2 00:00-24:00;Sep 01-30/2 00:00-24:00)=yes
> I certainly hope that proposal is not approved in its current form!
It looks horrible, and would require a JOSM plugin to be manageable
for the average mapper.
How about access:website=http://www.slcclassic.com/utilities/ud_citycreek_reservations.htm#anchor4
This would be unsuitable for routing but would at least give some info
for those who are really looking for it.
> As for the note_2: You should really combine the notes in one "note" tag.
Ah yes, someone put that in there before me.
martijn van exel
More information about the Tagging