Render motor_vehicle=destination;agricultural like motor_vehicle=destination on normal roads

[flexmak]

Render motor_vehicle=destination;agricultural / multiple access values on highways.

[imagico]

This is too non-specific as an issue here. What exactly would you like to see rendered differently and how do you think it should be rendered?

[flexmak]

This is too non-specific as an issue here. What exactly would you like to see rendered differently and how do you think it should be rendered?

Okay, I'll give the following example: When I tag motor_vehicle=destination;agricultural to an highway=residential, nothing gets rendered. Instead it should render the gray circles on the road.

[imagico]

Ok, changed the issue title to reflect that.

motor_vehicle=destination;agricultural is used 506 times on highway!=track - most in Germany, few in Austria and Switzerland, very few in France, Italy and Belgium, none anywhere else.

motor_vehicle=agricultural;destination is used 662 times on highway!=track, similar spatial distribution. Similar for vehicle=destination;agricultural and vehicle=agricultural;destination - but with lower numbers (<250).

The semantics of this tagging seem unclear to me. I have never seen signage reflecting this combination explicitly. To me motor_vehicle=destination seems to imply motor_vehicle=agricultural - unless certain types of motor vehicle are explicitly forbidden - but that would then mean agricultural=no.

This is not meant to invite a discussion how to tag things here. Just pointing out that - apart from the low use numbers and the very limited regional scope of this tagging more clarity on what the mapper consensus is on what this tagging means would be needed.

[flexmak]

Actually, this combination is pretty common in rural areas in Germany. See the example.

This combination is often used when transit traffic is not allowed in a residential street, but there are farm buildings in the street.

[imagico]

Actually, this combination is pretty common in rural areas in Germany. See the example.

Then this should be documented. Nothing so far on:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Verkehrszeichen_in_Deutschland
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:motor_vehicle%3Ddestination
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:motor_vehicle%3Dagricultural

This combination is often used when transit traffic is not allowed in a residential street, but there are farm buildings in the street.

This is covered by motor_vehicle=destination.

[dch0ph]

Yes, I think this can be handled by appropriate tagging. Supporting every combination of values would be impractical.

Either access=agricultural + motor_vehicle=destination or motor_vehicle=destination. I guess the distinction is whether agricultural vehicles can use it as a through way, Either will be rendered with "destination" access, and either is simpler / clearer than the original.

Recommended tagging should be documented.

[flexmak]

access=agricultural + motor_vehicle=destination

This would block the road for pedestrians and bicycles.

According to this German article, the German sign "Landwirtschaftlicher Verkehr frei" also allows agricultural transit traffic. That wouldn't be included in motor_vehicle=destination.

Another option would be to add agricultural=yes to an motor_vehicle=destination, but the wiki says, that agricultural=yes and motor_vehicle=agricultural have different meanings.

[imagico]

As already said - the question what the correct way is to tag a specific real world situation is not a discussion for this issue tracker.

If the tagging that is suggested to be used in rendering here is used widely to document something specific then this should be documented. But unless the specific situation this documents inherently only exists in central Europe the question of course arises if this mapping style is a local specialty and mappers elsewhere use different tagging to document the same thing. That is a discussion for a different venue though.

[vincentius63]

It's the right tagging, please see https://osmtools.de/traffic_signs/?signs=260,1020-30,1026-36

One could say: If the value of motor_vehicle contains "destination", render it like motor_vehicle=destination.

Either access=agricultural + motor_vehicle=destination or motor_vehicle=destination. I guess the distinction is whether agricultural vehicles can use it as a through way, Either will be rendered with "destination" access, and either is simpler / clearer than the original.

What about the combination destination;agricultural;forestry :)

Personally I don't see a great need for it.

[flexmak]

One could say: If the value of motor_vehicle contains "destination", render it like motor_vehicle=destination.

Yes, or maybe: Always render the weakest value.

Personally I don't see a great need for it.

There is no, but it's nice to have.

[dch0ph]

Trying to interpret multiple values in access tags will open up a can of worms. You would have lots of ambiguous/nonsensical combination likes motor_vehicle=yes;destination.

Given that access restrictions can always be expressed in terms of an overall access tag + mode-specific qualifications, I don't see the need for this.

Data consumers will thank us if this means fewer people use multiple values in a single tag.