Martijn van Exel
martijnv at telenav.com
Mon Oct 21 18:45:07 UTC 2013
Evin - a footway would not affect our routing results as those would
only include ways navigable by motorized vehicles. Or perhaps I am not
understanding what you did. Clifford - this would hopefully also
answer your question about walking routing: currently, we don't.)
Clifford, as for distinguishing between passenger-only ferries - that
would be something that would ideally be regulated with access tags,
do you agree?
So a an access road to a car ferry could then be:
and the ferry itself could then be:
What we haven't covered is implied access for ferries. My best guess
would be that foot=yes could be implied (i.e. only if there is no
pedestrian access would we tag foot=no, and foot=yes would be
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Evin Fairchild <evindfair at gmail.com> wrote:
> If you already tried routing through those two ferry routes, I'd suggest
> trying again, since I just added a footway onto the passenger terminals.
> Previous routing tests would have produced inaccurate results.
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Clifford Snow <clifford at snowandsnow.us>
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Evin Fairchild <evindfair at gmail.com>
>>> Interesting idea, but since there's not a whole ton of ferry terminals
>>> worldwide, I don't know if it would be worthwhile to create a whole new
>>> highway=* tag just for this. I don't really mind the service=ferry tag; it
>>> would be less complicated in getting it to render.
>> If service=ferry tag is acceptable to everyone, what about passenger only
>> ferries? For example, http://osm.org/go/WIdFBwTUx-- includes both car ferry,
>> and passenager only ferries here in Seattle. How does Telenav do walking
>> OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
Martijn van Exel
OSM data specialist
More information about the Talk-us