Good point. I have just connected the ferry route to the road network but I think there should be a node with amenity=ferry_terminal at this point. This is the point at which one would say the ferry called at within the timetable. Incidently I have added one at a point where the ferry just runs up onto the beach (ie there is no actual physical quay at all). I notice that Potlatch doesn't prompt for amenity=ferry_terminal.
Btw, if one is talking about a larger ferry port, such as the Port of Dover how should one code the individual quay and the actual port as a whole? Is amenity=ferry_terminal the quay or the port itself and how should one encode the other one? The definition we have on the wiki is "Ferry terminal/stop. A place where people/cars/etc. can board and leave a ferry." Which to me is the smaller of the two, ie the quay. The word 'Port' does not appear on the wiki. In general we seem to have scattered public transport access stuff all over the namespace and some features are still missing. Here is a brief review of what is there and what is missing 'Aerodrome' (airport) and 'Gate' are both within Aeroway (sounds sensible to me). 'Railway Station' and 'Tram Stop' are within Railway. There is no platform tag. We have a subway_entrance but not an 'Entrance' for a surface station or for an airport or anything else at all in fact except a cave! 'Bus Stop' is part of 'highway' but the 'bus station' is an 'amenity'. 'Moorings' is within Waterway but 'ferry_terminal' is within amenity. Pier is within man-made. We don't have a Port tag at all. Slip-way is within Leisure. A 'taxi bay' is within Amenity. Risking being immediately shot down I am going to suggest that it might be useful to consider rationalising some of this tagging to avoid a java-script sort of mess that we have to then live with for ever? We could do an audit of the current public transport tags (and possibly others) and in then move a bunch of them to new more rational places and update the tools at the same time. If we don't do this sort of thing soon I feel we will be stuck with it for ever. Possibly we could dual tag for a while. We add the new tag and deprecate the old one but ensure it remains available for a while. In particular I suggest the following: In relation to buses would it be more logical to move 'bus station' to 'highway'. For ferries would it be more logical for ferry_terminal, Pier and Slipway to all be within 'Waterway' features and to create a Port tag for the boundary of large ports. Possibly natural=lake and landuse=reservoir and also belong there. For railways should be create a Platform tag. Turn subway_entrance into entrance which can be used for all terminals (and also possibly other buildings/establishments/landuse). Personally I think entrance is actually a very general key for any node on a boundary and should not be a value for another key if that makes sense. Sorry for this long answer to a short question but it is something I have been meaning to mention for some time. Any thoughts? Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:talk- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Groom > Sent: 01 September 2008 13:22 > To: osm > Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-talk] Connecting ferry routes to roads? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Karran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "osm" <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 3:29 PM > Subject: [OSM-talk] Connecting ferry routes to roads? > > > > > > I fixed up the Isle of Man Steam Packet ferry route so that it goes > > all the way into Douglas harbour in the Isle of Man again. While I was > > at it, I connected it up with the road network so that routing > > programmes could route traffic through it as well. Is this common > > practice, and is there a standard way of linking them in? I've just > > linked the route to a service road which is connected to the rest of > > the road network. > > That seems to make sense and is how I have been mapping vehicle ferry > routes. > > However I'm not quite sure what to do with ferry routes which are for foot > passengers and available for cyclists, but not for motorcars.. > Following the logic above I would connect the ferry route to the nearest > highway with a footway tag. Although this would allow routing for cyclists > and pedestrians this seems "wrong" to me. > > For instnace the high speed poassenger service from Southamption to East > Cowes > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=50.89469&lon=- > 1.40605&zoom=17&layers=B00FTF > I have not conncted to the highway down the pier, as it would produce > short > stubs of footway rendered on the maps which really are just corridors > through buildings, but this means at the moment the ferry route is > unconnected to anything. > > David > > > > > > Cheers, > > Dan > > > > -- > > Dan Karran > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > www.dankarran.com > > > > ___ > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
