[Tagging] new access value
f at zz.de
Thu Oct 8 12:59:48 UTC 2015
On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 08:41:35PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> > If you include them? What would be the legal sign? I know
> > of none. You can put up signs which say - "Redheads only on
> > mondays" but thats nothing OSM could or should follow.
> There are no redheads signs, because they would be discriminating.
> There *are* signs for like "only on mondays", and there's an approved
> tagging scheme for this:
You dont get it dont you? There are ALWAYS signs which are much to
complicated to get tagged correctly in OSM. Abstract and map the
most likely case which affects non locals.
> >> Fahrverbot + Zusatztafel "ausgenommen Ziele in..."
> > Do you have pictures of something like this?
> Don't you believe me? I know for sure that I saw signs with that wording,
> but I certainly have no photo. So believe it or not.
> You can find similar signs here:
As i said in my initial mail and rephrased it above - there are always
signs which are impossible to map correctly. And even if you use this
thread to invent 10 new access conditions and tags - noone will ever
use them ...
> >> "Durchfahrt verboten"
> > motor_vehicle=destination or vehicle=destination - depends on
> > what is beeing ment. Might also be a access=private. Varys
> > on location and usage.
> >> "Durchgang verboten"
> > access=destination?
> Fine. You see that *=destination has a distinctive meaning.
You need to see what you want to achieve. A router will only send you
through a road marked with something=destination if
a) "something" matches your type of moving -
b) your destination is on that road.
So - if you have a "Durchfahrt verboten" and its a private road to a
farmyard - Its not Durchfahrt Verboten e.g. something=no because than
the router would never ever send you in there but its a
something=private which should be treated as destination in the router.
Residents at the end of the road would like to be routed through there.
So - It HEAVILY depends on your context you are mapping in what a sign
will be interpreted as.
> > You need to accept simplification
> Yet again, you are arguing towards access=yes/no.
Nope ... we have yes/no/destination/private/permissive
which should cover 98% of your signs - The left-over 2% must be
abstracted toward a "catch 80% of the use cases of the sign".
> > - there is NO WAY in the world we can
> > accurately a) tag all ways with any combination of blurp and make b) all
> > data consumers "do the right thing".
> We *can* do (a), your'e just lacking motivation. You won't get us forward
> with such a mindset.
> I do not care about (b), as that's not a tagging issue.
Okay - please sit down and write parser for access tags and ill feed it
vehicle type, and destination and the tags and you return if i am allowed to enter.
Once you start thinking about it you'll see that we already have a
multi-dimensional matrix which is near impossible to solve and now
you propose to add more columns and rows and dimensions to the already
ultra complex problem.
Florian Lohoff f at zz.de
We need to self-defense - GnuPG/PGP enable your email today!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Tagging