[OSM-talk-be] Designation=*

[Ben Laenen]

On Wednesday 29 August 2012 14:08:10 Sander Deryckere wrote:
> Don't all roads with access rules have specific signs to clarify the rules.
> I would think that the combination
> 
> access=destination
> bicycle=yes
> foot=yes
> horse=yes
> agricultural=yes
>
> 
> would be enough.

That's the problem: it isn't enough. access=destination (used for C3 with 
exception for "plaatselijk verkeer") will allow all horse drivers and all 
cyclists for example, whether they have their destination on that road or not. 
But if the F99 sign has no bicycle or horse on these signs, then cyclists and 
horse drivers can only enter the street if they do have their destination 
there...

These tags above can give an idea to most current routers, and we're far away 
from routers implementing country specific rules, and one would have to find 
some exotic examples where this really makes a difference (and I'm pretty sure 
some people have a reaction of "who cares about those details" as a result). 
But that shouldn't stop us from tagging these roads in a way that we can 
deduct the exact signage of that road in future once we have the tools that 
make use of them.


> If you really want to denote it's because one of those
> specific signs, maybe adding a "designation=reserved" would be good.
> Together with the access tags, it can be determined for who it is reserved.

We do need a method to discern between F99a/F99b and F99c though, as the rules 
are slightly different. Would the addition of agricultural=yes be enough, and 
would the meaning of designation=reserved be clear enough to mappers?

Ben