"motor_vehicle=no" says that motor vehicles aren't legally allowed along the road. That's not the case as Aidan has pointed out that these are the blue-backed advisory signs. If going with the commonly-used tags then I think that, whilst it's still technically not right, "motor_vehicle=destination" would be a better "hack". However I don't like hacks.
There are several roads near me marked "Unsuitable for HGVs", a similar blue-backed advisory sign, which I've tagged with "hgv=unsuitable". I don't know whether any of the routers actually do anything with this at the moment, but I think that the best tagging for the "Unfit for motors" would be the equivalent "motor_vehicle=unfit" or "motor_vehicle=unsuitable". Personally I can't see any difference between saying "unfit" or "unsuitable", so I'd be tempted to go with the one that's currently got the greatest number of uses, "motor_vehicle=unsuitable" (though with only 11 uses according to taginfo it's hardly high!; 0 instances of "motor_vehicle=unfit"). I think that changing the class of the road to service isn't the best way of recording the data. These roads will quite often legally be an unclassified highway and changing the class away from that just isn't accurate. In my view it'd be better for the routers to start taking into account the "x=unsuitable" style of tagging, though I realise that it's the usual chicken and egg situation here when the use of such tags is currently very sparse. From: Aidan McGinley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 10 December 2012 14:30 To: cotswolds mapper Cc: talk-gb Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Unfit for motors - tagging for routing <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:motor_vehicle> motor_vehicle=no should suffice I would have thought? On 10 December 2012 13:36, cotswolds mapper <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: There are lots of roads where I map which have "Unfit for motors" signs (blue/white advisory) but are normal maintained roads in limited but regular use. Typically they are narrowish, with lots of bends and often steep. In general anything up to maybe the size of a skip lorry can get through (though some are too narrow), but what makes them unfit for motors is very long stretches without passing places,so if you meet something coming the other way, one of you has a very long, difficult reverse. They are currently tagged in OSM as minor roads, which of course means they are eligible for routing. As an example, most (all?) routing services (not just OSM-based, Google Maps has the same problem) will route Chalford Hill to Stroud along Dark Lane, but Dark Lane has an "Unfit for motors" sign. It's the shortest and most direct route from the A419 to most of Chalford Hill, but very few locals use it. I'd like to tag these roads so that routing services will avoid them, but can't find any direct way of doing this. I've seen elsewhere that one mapper has tagged similar roads as Service roads. This has two advantages: routing services will ignore them(?); and service roads render differently so anyone using the map visually will be less likely to use these roads. It's pushing the current definition of service road rather a lot, but if you consider a service road to be a road that should only be used to access locations connected to the service road, then it seems within the spirit of the definition. There's a specific issue with Chalford Hill at the moment. Road closures (due to collapsed retaining walls) mean that the popular routes to the valley (Old Neighbourhood and to a lesser extent Coppice Hill) are closed and likely to remain so for over a month. My local source (a parish councilor) says that most locals are using a long diversion and avoiding Dark Lane. (Traffic on Dark Lane has increased, and there was recently a fist fight when two cars met and neither driver would reverse. Locals want to make it temporarily one way, which would massively increase its usefulness, but there's no quick way of doing this.) My two questions: 1) Should OSM data discourage use of routes that locals - who are likely to be better than outsiders at coping with narrow lanes - avoid as too problematic; 2) Is tagging usable but 'Unfit for motors' roads as service roads an acceptable way of doing this or is there a better method (that is recognised by current renderers and routing engines). As my opinion on (1) is yes, I've tagged Dark Lane and a couple of even more difficult roads as service roads, at least for the duration of the road closures, but will happily revert the tag if there's a better way. Rob _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
