Ulf Lamping schrieb: > Am 16.01.2010 10:16, schrieb Carsten Moeller: >> Yes, I do agree. We should have tags describing short and long >> distances. The latter is possibly best expressed by using relations. >> Yes, there are already tags for our problem: >> >> highway=service >> amenity=ferry_terminal (if it allows cargo=vehicle) >> ferry route (as tagged and displayed already on the maps) >> amenity=ferry_terminal (again with cargo=vehicle) >> highway=service >> >> But this kind of tagging is hardly parsable. In case of routing, I don't >> want to collect all highway=service in the topo. > > Sorry to say, if you don't take highway=service ways into account, your > whole routing program gets very certainly a lot less useful to a lot of > end users anyway. > >> For route=ferry or >> rail=railway I can distinguish if they are subtagged by motorcar=true or >> not. As a consequence the highway=service then should be subtagged with >> sth. like "ferry-link". But this guides me to my first approach again. >> In my opinion, it should be as simple as possible. > > That's true. But it should be as simple as possible for the mappers (as > long as it's somehow usable for routers) :-) > > If you say "the mappers have to improve tagging, otherwise I won't be > able to write a router" I'd say "write a better router". It's not > because I don't like you, it's because I know that half of the mappers > won't do it anyway and you'll just end up with a router not working in a > lot of situations. > >> I'm afraid, only few >> people will follow this tagging pattern and we'll end up in a forest. > > That's no news, regardless of what we'll discuss here ;-) > >> Once again, the main problem is the parsing itself. In case of the upper >> example you will have to analyze relations in a second step. If you >> tagged them directly It's just a one shot parsing. > > If you don't want to analyze relations, you will also miss other > required stuff (e.g. turn restrictions). A router not analyzing > relations has no future IMHO. > >> Another problem, as I've already mentioned before, are the connections >> (even same nodes) between railroads and streets. This is a annoying and >> kills the ability for OSM to route satisfyingly. > > No, it doesn't ;-) > > Regards, ULFL
Oh dear, don't remind me of the turning restrictions ~~~ This is another non fitting pair of shoes ;-) _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
