If so, much of my last post was an attempt to clarify that I do not wish to “use fee:foot=yes/no to indicate if humans need to pay to use the ferry”.
I would wish to use fee:adult+fee:children to indicate humans (as indicated in TL;DR at the tome, and in last section below the horizontal line)
Would that work for you?
(I could also try to explain again why there is no inconsistency IMO, but that is already answered in previous [too long, I know] post, search for the paragraph with “time being”, so I’ll try to keep this short instead)
Both values are very small though, but the intended usage of fee:adult and fee:children is same everywhere, not restricted just to ferries (just like bicycle=* and motorcar=* are not ferry-specific).
Here in Sweden we have some ferries where you do not need to get off (they are very short rides).
But regardless, I would interpret eather case as a cyclist, since it does not really matter from the ferries perspective. If you have a ferry with fee:bicycle=no and fee:adult=yes would you assume it is free to use if you never get off of you bicycle?
How about the 226 ferries (including a 43 hour one) currently tagged with foot=no? Are you not allowed to get out of your vehicle here?
toll:bicycle wiki is I think perfectly clear it is about vehicle only, as I quoted wiki earlier, and as we both seem to agree that fee:xxx and toll:xxx should have same syntax, it should be clear by itself. But even clearer is always better.
I’m not sure it works for motor vehicles in the examples I linked above.
E.g. in the first one the standard fare is 6 euros for a foot passenger or cyclist and 25 euros for a car including passengers.
I think you would interpret this as a fee for adults and no fee for the bicycle itself. But is 25 euro the fee for a car itself? Then there is no fee for adults travelling in a car. How to express that while still reflecting the fee for adults on foot or bicycle?
We have conditionals for that (e.g. fee:conditional = no @ age < 18) which is probably more precise than fee:children anyway. Apart from that, my understanding is that the namespaced fee uses access keys (i.e. fee:<access>) and inherits their meaning.
Link? There is no toll:bicycle page that I could find. And of course, toll:foot exists with 482 uses.
There is a difference between legislation and OSM mapping. E.g. we have bicycle=dismount. In Germany, they are legally pedestrians - in OSM they are still cyclists. If bicycle only refers to the vehicle, what does this tagging even mean?
Access keys aren’t the end all, be all. If you really, really, really want to tag that, you can use further tags and/or conditionals. Local legislation which we don’t map obviously also applies.
I can sort of understand your reasoning, because a lot of assumptions just don’t get mapped. In that sense, the difference between our interpretations is largely academic. I also simplified my description, to get at the heart of the issue. Maybe we are closer than we think.
My point is there is much less ambiguity on fee:adult then there is on fee:foot (where we don’t even know what they mean – people who were pedestrians before boards, or all pedestrians [including people who have boarded a vehicle too]).
I definitely wouldn’t, as I interpret fee:bicycle to be a about fee that has to be paid for the bicycle only. So to me, those two tags in combination mean: “you have to pay for each adult”, and also “you don’t have to pay anything (extra) for the bicycle(s)”.
(meaning that e.g. “one adult with 2 bicycles costs the same as one adult without anything”).
I don’t know, I’ve seemingly never been on one of them. But unless it is incorrect tagging (which seems likely to me), yeah, I would interpret it to mean that you must stay in your vehicle and not become pedestrian during the trip.
bicycle = no
charge = Resident: 0,70 EUR / Tourist: 2 EUR
fee = yes
foot = no
horse = no
motor_vehicle = no
name = Traghetto Santa Maria del Giglio
opening_hours = 09:00-14:00
route = ferry
toll = yes
Which looks pretty much like incorrect (or at least grossly incomplete) tagging, as it seems to imply nobody is allowed to board (but they still have to pay )
My second random click was w176888762 which has similar problems (all listed access tags are no), as was my third random click at w360342712 and my fourth random click at w136714600.
Now either I’m terrible at random clicking, or the area of the world I’ve selected near me has serious problems with ferry access tagging.
My fifth random click was w225996047 which seemed a little more promising – its access tags do not allow anybody but has wheelchair=yes, so my though was that perhaps that might’ve been some disabled-people-only small ferry, but looking at changeset seems it was clearly the mapper error – the mapped put all access values to no because (thank you for the useful changeset comment!) "There is no ferry service except in busy summer months"
The correct thing to would’ve IMHO been to modify opening_hours to be active only during said month (probably Jul-Aug, or Jun-Sep, depending) and leave access tags intact.
So, on this sample, I’d say the access tags are probably total mess on many of currently mapped ferry routes (at least those in southern Europe tagged with foot=no).
Click on the first link on that composite wiki page, and it will lead to you to main Key:toll page which explicitly talks about toll:bicycle, i.e.:
Where only certain classes of vehicles are tolled then this can be indicated using toll:hgv=yes or toll:bicycle=no.
It doesn’t, unfortunately.
Such more complex examples (there were even more complex ones mentioned before, e.g. where only one or two persons are included “for free” with car, and others still have to pay) would still require using *:conditional in any case
Um, in OSM they are too pedestrians, that is the whole meaning of =dismount AFAICT? (that you are allowed to push bicycle by your side while walking on foot, but not to ride on it)
The tagging come into existence (to the best of my knowledge) because there was ambiguity about what bicycle=no means – some uses thought it means you may not ride the bicycle (i.e. on dedicated footway) but you may dismount, become a “pedestrian with luggage” and drag the bicycle like any cargo (like e.g. like a pram or luggage on wheels), and others pointed cases where it is illegal to be with a bike at all. So the solution was to make bicycle=dismount for for former, and leave the bicycle=no for latter
(which wasn’t a great solution BTW, as it left the no value ambiguous, as one could not know if that was “old meaning of no” or “new meaning of no”. Better would’ve been to deprecate bicycle=no completely and use bicycle=forbidden_even_if_dismounted or similar new value).
Yeah, but you still have to involve some other fee:*=yes tag for that override to work.
And there are other possibilities even without :conditional (e.g. mark it as fee=no + fee:vehicle=yes to indicate pedestrians get free pass, but vehicles [including motorcats and bicycles] have to pay).
Hope so! To me the most important thing is to evaluate what tags might be understood (and already mapped!) ambiguously, and try hardest to avoid those, e.g. by finding non-ambiguous alternatives if possible.
While versatility and ease of use are big bonuses, they’re IMHO less important then non-ambiguity IMHO (as you note, there is always :conditional to fall back to if they are lacking).
But there is little of use if you have (even a popular tag) able to express many meanings and very easy to use, but it is completely unclear what those tags actually mean
The disadvantage of :conditional is that even its most basic syntax is hard to support by data consumers, and many extra things (like e.g. that age < 18) are not even documented on the wiki, and thus even much less likely to be supported by data consumers.
And if there likely won’t be automated parsing by data consumers, the question is aren’t we probably better off to just map the human-readable well known description=*[1] instead – that at least have some serious data consumer support already, and is most versatile and least problematic for mappers, app developers and users alike.
And/or even just add charge:url=https://someferry.example.com/pricelist if existing and call it a day.
In OSM, they fall under bicycle, not under foot, hence my insertion that they aren’t considered pedestrians in OSM.
Many jurisdictions consider both person walking with and without bicycle pedestrians - OSM makes this distinction, that a person walking with a bike is different (and has different access tagging) from a person walking without a bike.
The point is if people considered bicycle=yes to only refer to the vehicle without any consideration for its rider, then it would be valid to tag sidewalks with bicycle=yes, wouldn’t it? Since the bicycle itself is allowed. And bicycle=dismount in this setting makes no difference as it means the same thing.
No, bicycle=dismount specifically considers the rider or lack thereof. It says: “Yes, bicycles are allowed, but only if there is noone riding it.”
Now, does that mean I’m allowed to walk with a bicycle on a cycle path tagged with bicycle=yes? Yes, but also no. A better tag would be something like bicycle=cycling or a tag dont_walk_with_bicycle=yes, yet those are refinements and implicit assumptions, so they just don’t get tagged for simplicity.
Not quite that relation, but on their website, you can book from Kapellskär to Paldiski: Online Booking - Tallink Silja Line and if you try to remove the vehicle, it literally says “There must be a vehicle in the booking”. Maybe someone wants to check that, but I would say this qualifies for foot=no.
The route relation doesn’t describe the ship, but the service. So fee:foot refers to when you are booked as pedestrian (or equivalent) - whether you are one on the ship isn’t relevant to that.
I agree with that. To some extent we can work against ambiguity with the Wiki, though that also has its limits. :conditional support is also iffy.
I think this would be a good starting point. Just tag fee=yes and then add fee:description. The former doesn’t necessarily imply that you will have to pay - it’s just safer to err on the side of paying than showing up with no money. fee=no is a really strong statement.
The ferry from Rosslare to Dunkerque operated by DFDS requires a vehicle. You can board with a bicycle, motorcycle, or other motor vehicle - but not as a foot passenger. I remember reading about that in a non OSM context, and it’s consistent with their current booking website. I think some DFDS services from the UK are similar. I don’t see how that could be tagged other than foot=no - regardless of the fact that all passengers leave their vehicles for the 24 hour journey once on board.
(Currently the route is tagged as foot=no and bicycle=no, I would guess the latter is outdated - I seem to remember this changed after the route was launched. Either way, it’s clear what foot=no was intended to mean).
)