[OSM-talk] agriculture=yes/no and emergency=yes/no?

[Karl Newman]

On Dec 27, 2007 10:09 PM, Mario Salvini <salvini at t-online.de> wrote:
> Calum Polwart schrieb:
>
> > On Tue, 2007-12-25 at 10:23 +0100, Frédéric Bonifas wrote:
> >
> >> This is not a problem for emergency vehicules but for heavy vehicules
> >> and the proper tags would be maxweight= or maxwidth=. If this road is
> >> tagged with emergency=no, what will we say to the guy cycling this :
> >> http://michka.blog50.com/images/medium_italie_pompier_italier_1903.jpg
> >> ?!
> >>
> >> Frédéric
> >>
> >> 2007/12/25, Alex S. <maps at swavely.com>:
> >>
> >>>> I cannot imagine a situation where I would tag "emergency=no"...
> >>>>
> > I've been lurking for a while so its time a chipin here's a couple of
> > examples:
> >
> > Some examples of where Emergency=yes might be appropriate (does yes =
> > only??):
> > Roads at major locations (airports, stadia etc) where 'normal' vehicles
> > can not access but emergency vehicles can.  These will often shortcut
> > significant distances to an ERV
> > (Link to type of signpost in UK:
> > http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/023113ew.gif )
> >
> > Some small streets etc may have a specifically marked route called a
> > 'firepath'.  Think of a street like a crescent the firepath is in the
> > middle of the crescent separating the two ends.  Its illegal to use the
> > firepath normally but fire engines can use it to improve access -->
> > (Picture:
> > http://www.andypreece.co.uk/cycling/images/barfillan_drive.jpg )(would
> > be cycle=no; vehicle=no; emergency=yes) This restriction is kind of
> > shown on streetmap.co.uk
> > http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newsearch.srf?x=254250&y=664250&z=1&ar=Y&isp=200&ism=500&searchp=newsearch.srf&mapp=newmap.srf&ax=254125&ay=664435
> >
> > But not on
> > http://www.multimap.com/maps/?hloc=GB|G52%201BE#t=l&map=55.84928,-4.33172|17|4&loc=GB:55.85098:-4.33172:15|G52%201BE|G52%201BE
> > While on 'our maps' its shown too well!
> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=55.85022&lon=-4.32831&zoom=16&layers=B0F
> > If you are a fire engine coming along Paisley Road West from the West
> > (which as it happens is where you'd come from!) you have to go all the
> > way to Jura Street to loop back - according to our map... Paisley Road
> > West flows at about 2MPH during the day (5MPh if you are a big red
> > truck with flashing lights!! so the time may well matter...)
> > BUT
> exactly for such *highways* we need a "emergency=yes" :)
> > Example of  emergency=No:
> > there could be similar streets where the path is physically blocked
> > because there is an acceptable route for emergency vehicles. (whereas
> > this picture
> > http://ex-parrot.com/~pete/cycle/difficult-barrier2-thumb.jpg would be
> > cycle=yes, vehicle=no, emergency=no)
> a node with "highway=bollard" would be all you need here, IMO. But maybe
> you find a better one here:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/barriers.
>
> There is not really a need, for "emergyncy=no", but thre is all the more
> for "emergency=yes" or "emergency=designated".
>
> regards,
>  mario

I think having the explicit "emergency=no" tag would be clearer in
that case. Otherwise, routers will have to look for every kind of
barrier and infer if it's passable for emergency vehicles. Plus, if
the bollard is not tagged on a node that is part of the way, then
routers will not know that the bollard is supposed to be blocking the
way. Some bollards are removable for emergency access, too.

Karl