Talk:Key:routing:entrance

Untitled 1

It seems the main purpose of this tag is only for ways with multiple entrance=main. Sites that only have one entrance=main should probably already use that main entrance as the routing entrance, unless somehow you really want routing directed away from the main entrance? Sites that have multiple entrance=main, it seems routing:entrance=* is to set which is the default main entrance that should be selected? I think ideally geocoders/routing engines where presented with multiple main entrances would prompt the user and ask them to select one, but I can see some value in still being able to mark one as default in the data. —Aharvey (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Previous discussion https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/specify-an-entrance-to-an-airport/119922/
—— Kovposch (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes exactly, it is for large buildings or areas with multiple main entrances like hospitals or large parks. Also, it is used for areas without a physical entrance like some parks or playgrounds with no building. And they are very useful for automated analysis, like accessibility analyses, since we can then calculate precise travel time between POIs, homes and other places where people can go, instead of using centroids, which are problematic n some areas (especially large compounds). We use them a lot in our simulations and for transit/pedestrian/cycling accessibility analyses. --Kaligrafy (talk) 10:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I noticed it's exemplified as "distinct main entrances for students, for the cafeteria and for the employees". Assuming they are all on the same building=school , while this is rather a entrance=* limitation, you should try to use access=* and entrance=shop vs entrance=service first.
—— Kovposch (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think this serves the same purpose. Typically, you search for name or address of the POI. The geocoder returns coordinates that the router navigates to. This tag is a hint to the geocoder which target point to use instead of the centroid or some entrance node (if any).

Picture a golf course next to a motorway, with the club house on the far end and the address tagged on the area. By default, you will likely be guided on the motorway. The golf area may not even have a gate or entrance, but it will have a point where the access road crosses into the area, which is the routing target. Wolfbert (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Except of course in cases, where the routing target is outside the area (i.e. the parking lot in front of the golf course), which would probably require a site relation. Wolfbert (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

If the amenity=parking belongs to it, the leisure=golf_course can be drawn to cover that. If it doesn't, this is a question of closest good parking for applications, and shouldn't be added to OSM. Kovposch (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

What's the difference? Can you explain why a properly tagged entrance=* can't be used?

A router can certainly try not to end trips on a highway=motorway for your particular wording. In general, any highway=service roads inside can be prioritized. Kovposch (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Rewrite

In the process of translating the article to German, I took the liberty for a significant restructuring and rewording. I hope I've captured the intended meaning, if not, feel free to comment or improve.

I feel that the previous description of the site relation was a bit misleading. It is not "a common alternative" (3366 uses vs. 5035) but does different things. If a site relation is used anyway or the entrance is not on the outline, then yes. If the situation can be described with a polygon and a point on it (as in the vast majority of cases), then the simpler solution is preferable. Also, routing:entrance already enjoys software support. (In fact, a site groups objects of different geometry or location, so the individual area members may well have routing:entrances on them.)

I've removed the history lesson as it sounded like a good reason to not use the tag. Wolfbert (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Please don't remove histories. The wiki is not for you to promote something one-sided. It should have both facts, and all sides. Origins should be documented similar to whether there were proposals or discussions. Kovposch (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

If it makes you happy, so be it. It Is not customary though. All tags have a history, lots, and its not logged. Also, it is no longer 2024. Wolfbert (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)