[email protected] wrote: > Is it REASONABLE to route thru it as if it were a bridge? > Any Ferry needs quite a penalty on routing ... this 'Bridge' included. > In this case it is the optimum route, in time, effort and cost, for some foot and cycle journeys. It is a reasonable route for some motor traffic depending on many factors; time of day, vehicle, costing regime. It's use by local traffic at times is a testament to this. > How much volume can it handle? How long is the backup at rush hour? > Is it usable for thru-traffic, or only used for traffic > originating/terminating near one end? > These apply to any way. > Is tagging for the router morally superior to tagging for the > renderer? I'm am always aware when working on OSM that the main uses of the data are rendered maps and routing. I see no need to have to favour any end use in the dataset. Tagging is for the database, firstly. However a renderer or router use the tags is an issue for the developer. > Cloudmade can competitively improve their renderer to route over this > quasibridge quasiferry quassiaerialway however we decide to tag it and > its N for small N operating cousins, if we do it well and don't change > it. This was part of my original question; how are ferries and suchlike best tagged. They need to be routeable otherwise we will have unusable routes and ridiculous situations like isolated islands, for example, Britain being unreachable from continental Europe. As you point out whether data in the OSM is used by whatever software is not a concern of the database itself.
On the point of "is it a ferry or a bridge": I will point out that the beam does have a fixed end to end walkway. However, that shut to the public some years ago. Otherwise we could all have agreed it is a foot bridge. J _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
