[OSM-talk] prohibited/restricted/priority and mandatory manoeuvres

[David Earl]

On 20/10/2007 17:10, Peter Miller wrote:
> Sure, I will copy it to the wiki. But I also think we should aim to get this
> settled in the next week or two, or we are going to find people are getting
> on with coding using the 'draft' proposal which will make it harder to then
> change.
> 
> I think it would be good to describe all the tags we can predict we are
> going to need at the start, and I also think we should make it as easy as
> possible for professional users to migrate to OSM by using the same phrases
> for the same purposes (ie not using 'restricted' for a concept where the
> convention is to use 'prohibited', especially as the term 'restricted' means
> something else). Also there is the practical question that if we use the
> term restricted to cover 'prohibited' then what do we use for what the
> industry call restricted? I guess we could use 'difficult' or 'inadvisable'
> or 'impossible', but none of them quite work.
> 
> I would be happy to use Ipswich as the basis for some real comprehensive
> coding. I would aim to catch all the car, hgv and cycling restrictions for
> at least the core of the town and make it available to anyone doing routers.
> 
> As a matter of fact Simon Nuttall has already been testing the Cambridge
> Cycle Planner out using Ipswich OSM data over the past month, and he might
> be happy to add this functionality to his planner.


I think we'll learn by experience.

I was thinking of adding routes in Cambridge as per my proposals to see 
how they pan out.

There are surprisingly few "turn" restrictions in Cambridge that are 
independent of one-way streets etc. If you update the proposal as well 
as the discussion page, I'll follow your conventions again to see how it 
works.

However, I think it would be good to have some renderer support to help us.

David


David