# Talk:Proposed features/Connecting of routes

## Different route connections for hgv's and passenger cars

The ferries from Tallinn to Helsinki are said to be a part of E 67, which ends here in Helsinki. Not only does it have two different operators which use different harbours, there are maxlength=12 restrictions in the city, that effectively force all hgv's and other large vehicles from one harbour onto bigger roads that are not a part of any E-road. For example to get from one end of E 67 to E 12, a hgv has to drive 20 km, where a passenger car can drive only 2,5 km straight to the starting point of E 12. (In total it's a 11 km drive for the passenger car to the point where the motorcar and hgv would meet again.) From the other harbour the distance to E 75 is really short (and allowed for all vehicles), which in turn connects (via E 18) to E 12 outside the city.

Sometimes the detour might be faster for passenger cars, too. It's even more complicated: the connection to "start of E 12" through the center is reasonable only if you use it to get to the E 75, but to get to E 75, you turn right 20 meters before the E 12 actually starts. Either the connecting roads (E 67 - E 12) are in two connection relations, or the "generalized map" you were aiming for is missing that 20 meters, if the relation only includes the ways that truly connect said from and to E-road routes.

There exists a short 0.5 km "natural" connection  2818672 (iD, JOSM, Potlatch2, history, analyze, manage, GPX, XML) between the E 12 starting point and E 75 in the very center of the city - again off limits to anything over 12 m long. There's another point worth a mention in that relation, too: it has a gap at the beginning, because the connection uses the E 75 "in the other direction" for about 40 meters, after a bit that connected the different directions of E 75. Alv (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think, that we can add to connecting relations tags as maxlength=, motorcar=designated, hgv=no, which mean restrictions to whole link.
Don't we loose relation-link from E67 to E75 in this case?
Excuse me, I don't understand, what is the problem with gat in relation? The problem is that looks not good? Dinamik (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

## Ferries not touching the routes, but part of them

This is again specific to the E-roads, but relevant. Case: the E 75 still runs to the center of Helsinki and supposedly continues somewhere in Poland. The only ferry connection (whenever it chooses to exist) starting point is over 5 km away from the nearest point of the on-land part here in the new harbour, and over 18 km away (as the crow flies) in Poland. As far as anybody knows, there is no financial (or any other kind) relation with the ferry route, and the actual route network. Somebody has nevertheless tagged the ferry as int_ref=E 75. That's either a) one mighty long "connecting relation" at over 830 km or b) there's bound to be equally wide gaps in central Europe, where no route connection is appropriate. I'd actually say that if one does not want to process the whole europe.osm and route between all nearly touching points just to get the best connections, these should better be just a tag like instrumental_to_e-road-network=yes on all ways that are necessary to get normally legal transport modes across the gaps. Alv (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't say, what we should do with such gaps: people tagged e-roads for long time, but I don't see agreement about such gaps. On the one hand, int_ref on ferry is logically correct, on the other hand, it can be deceptive way. Should we tag way without highway, but with int_ref or included to european route relation? It is a field for thinking.
I think, that instrumental_to_e-road-network=yes and connecting relations can be used simultaneously. Now e-road can be mapped with tag int_ref=, with including to relation of European route, and simultaneously with tag and relation. Shouldn't we use easier tag, for example, e-road_link=yes? Dinamik (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)