Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Short ways added to substitute barriers

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 29. Oct 2018, at 11:11, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> I would consider it as a tagging for renderer, and it would be preferable to 
> avoid it (tagging
> 
> access on gate should be sufficient). On the other hand it is one of the 
> least harmful ones
> 


It should be discouraged, if there is a restriction through the gate, it should 
go on the gate, not on the way passing through. The result may come close to 
the actual situation but it is still wrong.


Cheers, Martin ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Short ways added to substitute barriers

[Mateusz Konieczny]

29. Oct 2018 11:43 by davefoxfa...@btinternet.com 
:

>  It's the gate which is the restriction. The problem is the gate
> doesn't have any subtags to indicate access.
>




I am using access=*, vehicle=*, bicycle=*, foot=*, opening_hours=* 




At least for gates in my region it is sufficient.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Short ways added to substitute barriers

[Dave F]

Hi

I've had similar in my area, also by Amazon Logistics *, where they 
added a short section around a gate like one you've indicated with 
access=private. I removed it as you can drive right up to the gate. This 
is tagging incorrectly for the router.


 It's the gate which is the restriction. The problem is the gate 
doesn't have any subtags to indicate access. It could be permanently 
open or locked shut. It might have a latch operable by all or a keypad 
entry allowing entry to specific people. etc.



* Personally, I think causing more harm than benefit, but that's for 
another thread.


Cheers
DaveF

On 29/10/2018 03:08, Jem wrote:


Re: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/634085262 and several more like 
it in the area.


It seems that new, short ways have been introduced to replicate the 
purpose of the existing barrier nodes. i.e. to prevent routing for 
vehicular traffic. I believe it is incorrect and just adds complexity.


I plan to contact the user to discuss, but want to make sure I'm 
right. Can any experienced members please advise?



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Short ways added to substitute barriers

[Jem]

Your assumptions are spot-on. Thanks for the advice.

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018 at 20:12, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> 29. Oct 2018 04:08 by jem.maw...@gmail.com:
>
>
> Re: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/634085262 and several more like it
> in the area.
>
> It seems that new, short ways have been introduced to replicate the
> purpose of the existing barrier nodes. i.e. to prevent routing for
> vehicular traffic. I believe it is incorrect and just adds complexity.
>
> I plan to contact the user to discuss, but want to make sure I'm right.
> Can any experienced members please advise?
>
>
> I am assuming that there is a gate here and there is no short segment
> where
>
> motor vehicles are forbidden - though weirder thing happened and maybe
> there is a sign
>
> meters before gate from each side "motor vehicles forbidden".
>
>
> I would consider it as a tagging for renderer, and it would be preferable
> to avoid it (tagging
>
> access on gate should be sufficient). On the other hand it is one of the
> least harmful ones
>
> so I would it phrase it "it is not necessary to do that" rather "it is
> harmful, stop immediately,
>
> I reverted your edits".
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: Short ways added to substitute barriers

[Mateusz Konieczny]

29. Oct 2018 04:08 by jem.maw...@gmail.com :


>
> Re: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/634085262 
> >  and several more like it in 
> the area.
> It seems that new, short ways have been introduced to replicate the purpose 
> of the existing barrier nodes. i.e. to prevent routing for vehicular traffic. 
> I believe it is incorrect and just adds complexity.
> I plan to contact the user to discuss, but want to make sure I'm right. Can 
> any experienced members please advise?




I am assuming that there is a gate here and there is no short segment where 


motor vehicles are forbidden - though weirder thing happened and maybe there is 
a sign 


meters before gate from each side "motor vehicles forbidden".





I would consider it as a tagging for renderer, and it would be preferable to 
avoid it (tagging

access on gate should be sufficient). On the other hand it is one of the least 
harmful ones

so I would it phrase it "it is not necessary to do that" rather "it is harmful, 
stop immediately,

I reverted your edits".


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Fwd: Short ways added to substitute barriers

[Jem]

Re: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/634085262 and several more like it in
the area.

It seems that new, short ways have been introduced to replicate the purpose
of the existing barrier nodes. i.e. to prevent routing for vehicular
traffic. I believe it is incorrect and just adds complexity.

I plan to contact the user to discuss, but want to make sure I'm right. Can
any experienced members please advise?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk