Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
> Instead I've used highway=track based on the physical
> appearance, and then added designation=
> unclassified_highway to record the legal classification.
Agreed: I often do something similar.
In this case, though, I'm not entirely comfortable with highway=service as a
tag, because there's no consensus that highway=service implies a right of
through-passage for (among others) cyclists, pedestrians etc. A routing
engine would not be off-beam to interpret it as access=destination; so it
may well be the case that, by "fixing" routing for cars, it's breaking it
for other users.
As ever, we tag what's on the ground. In this case, there's a sign advising
"Unsuitable for motors". So rather than "motor_vehicle=unsuitable", which
implies a value judgement on OSM's part ("we say this is unsuitable"), we
could perhaps use the subtly different "motor_vehicle=not_advised" (with
"source:motor_vehicle=signage" for the truly pernickety), or something like
that.
It's all a bit angels-on-a-pin until any routing clients actually take note
of the tags, of course, but it's certainly an issue worth considering.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Unfit-for-motors-tagging-for-routing-tp5739827p5739879.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
