|
In a street without exit and return balloon, it is correct to use simultaneously the tags below?
Or should I opt for one of them? If so, which one? Here's a link with example: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=20/-20.52457/-54.62382 |
|
Those are two independent tagging questions:
Also see Key:noexit in our docu wiki and the discussion at the other answer here. Both tags are the node. The street really no way out. I know the place and route ends with a wall, transposable only with a ladder. Comments not yet "closed the matter." As it is, is that correct?
(09 Sep '15, 15:49)
seth
2
@seth: I, personally, would add add both tags then (to record your local knowledge). I do not understand what you mean by "Comments not yet 'closed the matter.'", sorry
(09 Sep '15, 15:51)
aseerel4c26 ♦
Sorry for my English, because I think a little bit. I said it was not clear if I can use both tags or not, specifically for this case. All that being said, it is based on various situations. But I would like an answer just for this situation as link: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=id#map=20/-20.52457/-54.62382 Independent of other possibilities elsewhere.
(09 Sep '15, 16:16)
seth
4
@seth: for the situation at the linked position (and with "The street really no way out. I know the place and route ends with a wall, transposable only with a ladder."): Just add both tags ( In addition: To indicate that you have real local knowledge, add something like this ("local knowledge") to your changeset comment when you save the change.
(09 Sep '15, 17:17)
aseerel4c26 ♦
Well, for this case, considering that: - Street with general access (pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, animals, motor vehicles); - Street really no way out (for all) Both tags could be used. Now for other cases where there may be the possibility to output one or more elements circulating on the street, it is used only highway = turning_circle.
(10 Sep '15, 12:56)
seth
|
|
Just 1
well, and what about e.g. foot/cycle paths (wiki page: "don't use it at the end of a motorised road where a footpath continues")?
(09 Sep '15, 14:09)
aseerel4c26 ♦
1
noexit can help to prevent false positives from quality assurance tools but as noted by aseerel4c26 it should only be used if the road is really a dead end, even for cyclists and pedestrians. It is not for routing tools. Moreover highway=turning_circle does not imply a dead end!
(09 Sep '15, 14:51)
scai ♦
4
In this case the satellite imagery shows a turning circle so that is applicable. The noexit tag is totally independent and is really only used for two purposes: First for QA tools to know that a way that almost but not quite connects to another is correct and second to let other (probably armchair) mappers know that two ways do not connect. Neither are the case in the area you linked as it is obvious that the road ends there with no continuation. Routing software does not use the noexit tag but simply relies on the connections that exist between ways in the database.
(09 Sep '15, 14:58)
n76
1
The street in question is for vehicles, pedestrian and cyclists. The comments from you focus on cyclists and pedestrians. But what about cars? In my view, the highway = turning_circle, announces that it is possible to convert the car without using the reverse gear. Already noexit = yes, reports (for all) that you can not proceed to the end of the street as it has no way out (it closed, has a wall). If one of them (tag) is omitted, information for all (pedestreas, bikes and cars) will be incomplete. Thus, it would be both tags. What do you think?
(09 Sep '15, 15:04)
seth
2
It is perfectly fine to add the noexit=yes tag at the very last node of the way if traveling further is impossible for all kinds of transportation, including cars, pedestrian and cyclists.
(09 Sep '15, 15:38)
scai ♦
|
