I think access=fee, or access=yes + fee=yes would be appropriate. How do access=fee compare with access=customers in existing usage? (I tried to look it up myself on tagwatch, but my phone didn't like it much) On Jul 31, 2012 5:59 PM, "Georg Feddern" <o...@bavarianmallet.de> wrote:
> Am 31.07.2012 22:50, schrieb LM_1: > >> Not knowing how different routers use access I believe that ways >> marked as access=customers should be routed with some sort of warning. >> The same goes for access=private. Quite commonly the real final >> destination would be in some limited access area and so routers do not >> have to absolutely avoid more restrictive access values than public. >> > > Quite commonly the ferry would not be the real final destination - but in > the middle of the route. > Routers commonly do not use more restrictive access values in the middle > of a route ... > > access=customer may be also parking places with bothside access. > access=private may be also big company areas with bothside access. > Commonly routers shall not use those - so why should they use them at > ferry terminals? > > You may have to pay a "fee" to access, but I would call this a public > traffic route. > In particular if there is no other possible route. > As long as there is no other easy way I would "tag for routers" in this > case. > > Georg > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
