Poll about tagging scheme for destination restrictions

[Kovoschiz]

Ok. What are we disagreeing about?

[Kovoschiz]

destination=Harcourt avoiding low bridge;Elmsford can be argued to be used for replicating the signage depending on destination= definition, and compatibility. Cf the aforementioned destination:via=Something could be used with destination=Somewhere (via Something) if that’s exact the text. Again, it depends how destination= should be used.
On the other hand, obviously destination=Harcourt avoiding low bridge;Elmsford B 481 is not used literally, but destination:ref= / destination:ref:to= =B 481
I do prefer adding a destination:*=avoiding low bridge , however it can be independent of deciding what should be in destination=

[Penegal]

Not disagreeing, misunderstanding; it’s precisely to try to make this misunderstanding disappear that I asked you some questions on this message.

@Kovoschiz

I do prefer adding a destination:*=avoiding low bridge , however it can be independent of deciding what should be in destination=

@trial: I’m considering adding some kind of destination:comment=avoiding low bridge for that; the problem with, for instance, destination:via=*, is that it assumes that the comment after the destination is something like Dest. via something, but the comment may be something very different, and language-dependent, whereas destination:comment=* is generic enough to serve all kind of text comments for a destination. Yep, I like the idea of destination:comment=*…

@trial

About signage in France, it is said that SU1 has no equivalent.
For , destination:symbol=detour_route[S 3]sounds OK to me.

I won’t consider detour routes for the proposal, I think. On the one hand, I don’t know enough on detour routes, both in France and elsewhere, to make a sound proposal on this subject; on the other hand, I prefer to not make a too long, too complex proposal. It will likely be already long and complex enough without trying to manage detour routes; better is the enemy of good.

Besides, the signage of detour routes in France is rather chaotic: there are Bis routes, Sn routes… and the Sn routes SU1 symbol may be anywhere on destination signs: on the same register as exit numbers, with destination refs, with destination items, separated from destination items, at the top of the sign, at the bottom, on a separate signpost… Nope, I’ll not risk blowing the proposal with something so tricky; maybe letter, but not yet.

[Penegal]

@Penegal

@Kovoschiz

The transformed logic destination:maxweightrating=none would rely on destination:maxweightrating=3.5 on another turn at the same junction to show it’s for 3.5t, which may not be present. Only destination:access:conditional=designated @ (weightrating > 3.5) replicates the signage compatibly, reliably, and exactly.

Do you mean that the access: namespace would have to be used only for conditional restrictions, i.e. always use destination:access:conditional instead of destination:conditional because conditional restrictions are tagged with access: suffix? Did I get it right this time?

@Kovoschiz Did I it get it right this time?

Besides, you also talked about a destination:via tag; does it already exist, or did you forged it yesterday, for your point? 'cause I feel that a more generic tag like destination:comment would fit better.

[Kovoschiz]

It’s documented in user pages destination:via | Keys | OpenStreetMap Taginfo
User:Mueschel/DestinationTagging - OpenStreetMap Wiki
As I said, you can have destination= + destination:via= + destination:comment= together. destination:comment= can be for the sign. destination:via= is more convenient for application to use when they need to transform it, especially for instructions. It contrasts destination:street= / destination:street:to= , so actually it may be discussed to split into destination:street:via= roads, and destination:via= locations.
Furthermore, Commonwealth has another special sign Follow Something For Somewhere, which may be discussed for using destination*:via= and destination= somehow Direction signs on all-purpose roads - GOV.UK

• https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65f0279cff11700011615906/railway-museum.svg
• https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65e9bc5d5b65240011f21b9e/industrial-estate-follow.svg

[trial]

Here avoiding low bridge is the opposite of via ;-).
@Penegal not sure detour routes are easier to map in UK with !

[Penegal]

I don’t feel I can endorse destination:via=* in the proposal:

• the proposal is about destination tagged on highways, not about destination_sign relations; according to TagInfo, destination:via=* is almost only used on relations, which are out of the scope of the proposal; maybe will the people use the proposed tags, if approved, on destination:sign=*, but I don’t intend them so;
• destination:via=* is almost only used in Italy, and is almost undocumented (I don’t believe that a two-liner on @Mueschel personal wiki pages is a correct documentation, despite his personal experience on this matter);
• I also consider suspect that, according to TagInfo, destination:via knew a sudden surge of use in 2017, and was, before as after that, virtually in disarray;
• via can mean by passing through, but it also the italian word for street, path, way, and thus seems way to polysemous to me: it could very well have a very different meaning than the one looked for here;
• as said, destination comments can be anything, without necessarily meaning by passing through; in your example, avoiding low bridge is hardly an answer to the question by passing through what?. Using destination:via as the tag for such mentions would be misleading; key names should be self-descriptive, and I can’t say it’s the case here without distorting the truth at least a bit.

All in all, that’s too many uncentainties for a tag that I could propose, particularly when it’s not the core of the proposal: that would risk getting a negative vote for a minor point. The proposal will already be tricky enough without looking for trouble on a minor point.

And, err… I’m sorry to insist, but you didn’t answer me:

@Penegal

@Penegal

@Kovoschiz

The transformed logic destination:maxweightrating=none would rely on destination:maxweightrating=3.5 on another turn at the same junction to show it’s for 3.5t, which may not be present. Only destination:access:conditional=designated @ (weightrating > 3.5) replicates the signage compatibly, reliably, and exactly.

Do you mean that the access: namespace would have to be used only for conditional restrictions, i.e. always use destination:access:conditional instead of destination:conditional because conditional restrictions are tagged with access: suffix? Did I get it right this time?

@Kovoschiz Did I it get it right this time?

Sorry to ask one more time, but this looks important.

[Kovoschiz]

What? I mentioned destination:via= as a case study of how to use destination= , not about using it here. Both of you misunderstood it.

[cquest (Christian Quest (OSMFR-Panoramax))]

In such tag “table” logic, the usual separator is | instead of ; which could be kept to provide a country sign reference as well as a corresponding generic meaning like:

destination:symbol=motorway;hazmat:water;FR:SI11|motorway;hazmat:water;FR:SI11||

[trigpoint (Philip Barnes)]

@trial

Penegal not sure detour routes are easier to map in UK with

Isn’t the job of an OSM based satnav to work that out?

[trial]

Feel free to make a proposal for those detour routes, but it’s not the subject of this poll. We already map those routes, not the symbol they’re using I think (I’m not mapping in UK).
destination:symbol=detour_route is given only for France, and only for FR:SU2 .

But that’s also the whole subject of this poll:

• should we map the intention (here mentioning a detour) in OSM terms or
• should we map the actual sign (here FR:SU2).

For the first, that’s enough. For the second we would need 9 keys for UK. They don’t seem to have a code but a description, Off-Network Tactical Diversion Route - Wikipedia.

[Penegal]

Unless that, in highway-related feaures, | is a separator for different lanes, and destinations are also often tagged per lane, i.e. using |.

Besides, your example uses both human-readable values (hazmat:water) and sign IDs (FR:SI11), which is basically duplicating data.