Proposal:Toll Gantry
| Tag:highway=toll_gantry | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Approved (active) |
| Proposed by: | spuddy93 |
| Tagging: | highway=toll_gantry |
| Applies to: | 
|
| Definition: | A tag on a node to denote a transponder or camera gantry that exists for the purpose of electronically collecting tolls. |
| Statistics: |
|
| Rendered as: | |
| Draft started: | 2018-08-28 |
| RFC start: | 2018-09-05 |
| Vote start: | 2018-09-19 |
| Vote end: | 2018-10-03 |
| The Feature Page for the approved proposal highway=toll_gantry is located at [[1]] |
Proposal
We propose a tag on a node to denote a transponder or camera gantry that exists for the purpose of electronically collecting tolls, with the intention of preventing unnecessary routing penalties for automatic toll collection systems.
Rationale
Many current routing softwares add a delay to trip time when encountering the tag barrier=toll_booth. However, the delay on these more modern toll collection systems is significantly less; not requiring the driver to stop in most cases. In effect, this means that many drivers will be routed onto a slower route. Using a different tag combination can prevent this as the tolling system continues to become more prevalent. This would be used in combination with the tag toll=yes used on ways and give a clear visual representation of where the tolled part of the way begins while not interfering with routing software told to exclude toll=yes. In light of the fact that some roads will be missing the tag toll=yes, routing software will have to be updated to avoid highway=toll_gantry if the user is trying to avoid tolls entirely.
Examples
The pictures on the right of this page are examples that are meant to give a clearer idea of what we are discussing.
.jpg)
Tagging
In consideration of the similar and already in use tag highway=speed_camera, we believe that the tag highway=toll_gantry would be a better fit than barrier=toll_booth. Since toll gantries will only occur on highways and are in fixed positions, the tag highway=* seems to be a better choice than man_made=*. The structure in question is sometimes referred to as a "toll bridge." The term "toll gantry" is less ambiguous considering that the term "toll bridge" is also used to refer to a bridge that one must pay a toll to cross. The term "electronic toll collection" often refers to these methods as well. The advantage here is that "toll gantry" continues to be clear, as well as requiring significantly fewer keystrokes. There is currently a tag for an enforcement relation, but it has more to do with toll compliance, specifically in Germany, rather than paying the toll.
Applies to
The tag would be applied to nodes placed on a way. We expect this to be used primarily on ways tagged highway=motorway, but it could easily be used on any way with a highway=* tag where an electronic toll gantry appears. It would be done in the same manner as highway=traffic_signals or highway=crossing.
Rendering
The icon could be rendered as the icon shown at the top of the page.
Features/Pages affected
The pages for barrier=toll_booth and toll=* would need to be edited to direct people to highway=toll_gantry in the case of a toll gantry. The page for highway=* would need to be updated to include this tag.
External Discussions
Current Discussions
Here is a link to the current tagging mailing list discussion:
RFC: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-September/038913.html
Voting: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-September/039178.html
Prior Discussions
It seems that discussion on this has been on and off for a while now, and yet no standard has been set. Here are some places where it has been discussed or mentioned.
- The barrier=toll_booth discussion page:
- A page from the tagging list in 2015 before the introduction of the tag mentioned in the page for enforcement relation:
- A page discussing this issue, compounded by lane use being shifted based on traffic needs:
- A page with a recent discussion including some of the routing issues presented by the current standard:
- A page from 2009 that began a discussion on this but never came to a conclusion (using a search-in-page function for the word 'toll' will make this discussion easier to follow):
Voting
The proposal was past at the end of 2018-10-03 with 24 votes for and 7 against. Approximately a 78% approval.
- Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
- Scroll down to voting and click 'Edit source'. Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:
| To get this output | you type | Description |
|---|---|---|
|
{{vote|yes}} --~~~~
|
Feel free to also explain why you support proposal. |
|
{{vote|no}} reason --~~~~
|
Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no. |
|
{{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~
|
If you don't want to vote but have comments. Replace comments with your comments. |
~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.For full template documentation see Template:Vote. See also how vote outcome is processed.
I approve this proposal. Machen wir's! Let's do it! --Icke68746 (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. --Peter W34 (talk) 08:35, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Sparks (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Spuddy93 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --LLlypuk82 (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Johan Jönsson (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Tohaklim (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Prusaker (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. Sorry, i missed the RFC, but the proposed tag doesn't solve the routing delay problem of tollbooths that work both manually (i.e. cash or credit card) and automatic. [2] In my opinion an additional tag like toll:electronic=no/yes/only for barrier=toll_booth would be more helpful. Besides, the wiki defines barrier=toll_booth as 'a place where such charge is collected, either manually or automatically'. --SelfishSeahorse (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. This is a great solution for tagging non-barrier tollways. --Te-ika (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --rskedgell (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. The toll gantry should not used to map a motorway entry what have a physically barrier or for lanes they use transponders like a Bip&Go, Telepass, E-ZPass etc. This tagging should used only to map a "free flow gate", like the gantry on the Italian A36. There is no description if the tagging is for automated toll booth or only for "free flow gates" because of this I changed from Yes to No --Luschi (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. --RoxyNala (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Fizzie41 (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. As SelfishSeahorse pointed out, the problems described would be more easily and more elegantly solved with subtagging the existing barrier=toll_booth, instead of inventing a new first level tag. Subtagging preserves backward compatibility, while a new tag has to be implemented everywhere. The preserved routing time would be a few seconds once-per trip, thus the difference on the calculated overall travel time would be insignificant. --Polarbear w (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Aharvey (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I want only add some points: this system can be good for the toll bridges because it locates exactly the electronic payment systems that are NOT located at the toll booths. In case of an electronic system located at a toll booth I think that SelfishSeahorse and Polarbear w are correct, and a new subtagging of barrier=toll_booth is necessary; the only thing that makes me think differently is that the electronic payments are normally only for a subset of all the barriers in a toll booth, and since we are mapping the toll booth as a single way the problem doesn't seem to be simply solved --Rallysta74 07:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Good work and a good write-up. AlaskaDave (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. ndm gantry is a generic highway object - a toll gantry should be subclassed from it, i.e. highway=gantry + gantry=toll
- I approve this proposal. --Javbw (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC) a good enough solution to solve a small problem. In Japan, most motorway exits (cash or trasponder) are barrier=toll gates, but the Tokyo system exits are mostly barrier-free gantrys.
- I approve this proposal. Clearly toll gantries are not barriers like the current tagging implies. — EzekielT (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Jeisenbe (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC) Re: ndm suggested highway=gantry. The word "gantry" is also used for different features: a certain type of crane used in seaports, a structure in power substations and transmition lines, and a structure used at rocket launching sites (see wikipedia). Because of this ambiguity I don't think a gantry=* tag is a good idea. The relevant types of gantry used over highways and railways are used to support signs (eg destination signs), traffic signals, cameras and automatic toll collection devices. All of these features can be tagged on a node by their function with existing tags.--Jeisenbe (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I am overall happy with this proposal, and am therefore voting in approval. I do have a minor concern, though, and that is that people might use both "barrier"="toll_booth" and "highway"="toll_gantry" on the same node due to confusion. Would it not it be better to make this impossible and propose "barrier"="toll_gantry" instead? — LeifRasmussen
- I approve this proposal. I approve, but only for tolls without cabins or barriers, for automatic tolls with barriers you have to improve toll_booth with tags like toll_booth:electronic=only|yes|no|no assuming a toll with 4 barriers, and you can add more for others things like toll_booth:hgv=no|no|yes|yes toll_booth:emergency=yes|yes|designated|yes toll_booth:eight=2.10|2.10|4.10|4.10 and so, it's just an idea, who wants to take it and do it a proposal...--AgusQui (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Michi (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Electronic toll systems are still toll barriers and therefore should be subtagged to remove the speed penalty when routing through these facilities. So everything is a toll barrier and some are electronic and therefore don’t need a routing penalty. This seems more logical and fault-proof to me, and it reduces complexity, since all toll barriers are still toll barriers and not splitter among multiple tags. I also agree to the point of backwards compatibility mentioned before. --LukeLR (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Ich sehe keine Nutzen. --Gosausee
- I approve this proposal. --Nevw (talk) 05:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Ralleon 05:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --ClipArtJoel (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Hufgardm (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I think this is a good idea firstly because of time penalties, and secondly, if someone want to make some analytics he/she will be able to make distinguish these to different types of tool_gates --BrackoNe (talk) 06:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. While the term "gantry" makes sense as does the key highway, I do not like the exclusive definition for "collecting toll". For me it would make much more sense, to also include systems that control or verify if toll has already been collected. Systems which offer subscription models usually do not collect the toll at the gantry, they just verify whether you are eligible of using a specific piece of road. I am not opposing the proposed tags, I oppose the proposed definition. --Dieterdreist (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. The tagging of toll=yes should be enough to understand there is a fee to pay. I do not think the highway key is appropriate. What benefit does this add? If you want to map the structure, you could do man_made=surveillance + surveillance:type=ALPR and perhaps surveillance:zone=toll. - LastGrape/Gregory
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EZ_Pass_Pennsylvania_Bensalem.jpg){kind=link}