[Tagging] Proposal for admission=* tag

[Jeroen Hoek]

On 26-10-2020 17:52, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> I have a feeling the poi role is a bit vague. I would keep it optional,
> with only admission and issue being required for the admission relation
> to work.

Wouldn't issue be optional as well if any admission:issue:* tags are
used? For example, the roaming ranger scenario where no ticket shop exists.

You could consider requiring having at least one of those (an
admission:issue:* tag or an admission role member) for a valid relation.

> For example, your restaurant example, if the restaurant is poi, and one
> entrance is admission, what if someone adds a second entrance and
> forgets to add it to the admission relation? Then the system breaks
> down, and the router routes you through the second entrance.
> I would keep it simple, and add the whole restaurant as admission.
> 
> But I'm sure there are examples where a third role would be necessary.
> I'd like to keep this for a different proposal, and keep it simple for now.

That's understandable. How will you handle the theme park with
separately mapped entrances though?

If you omit the entrances from the relation, and these have something
like access=customers, routers won't know that there is an admission
relation with information on where to get tokens/tickets and what it
admits access to. Routers that try to use the admission relation, won't
know that they could offer navigation to the entrances, rather than to
the middle of the POI. Or am I over-thinking this?

If the entrances are role 'admission', and the ticket
office/shop/machine role 'issue', then where do you link the relation to
the park itself?

>>  admission:issue:*
> 
> I like this one. So in addition to relation members with the "issue"
> role, you can also get the ticket through all the admission:issue:xxx=*
> ways. I'll add it to the wiki.

Nice. :)