Skip to content

Adds AddFerryFee quest#6556

Closed
paulklie wants to merge 2 commits intostreetcomplete:masterfrom
paulklie:ferry_fee
Closed

Adds AddFerryFee quest#6556
paulklie wants to merge 2 commits intostreetcomplete:masterfrom
paulklie:ferry_fee

Conversation

@paulklie
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@paulklie paulklie commented Oct 10, 2025

Implements the first part of #6333.
I chose the ordeal (185) high enough to avoid conflicts with other quests being developed / PRs.
On the icon: I am not sure what background color would be best since we probably want to use the car/bicycle/pedestrian colors for the more specific quests?
I suggest green as a ferry could be seen as an "amenity" in a certain sense. Alternatively we could use the public transport blue?
Is there anyway to neatly filter out all toll:* elements without listing them all?

Already tested.

@paulklie paulklie added the new quest accepted new quest proposal (if marked as blocked, it may require upstream work first) label Oct 14, 2025
@westnordost
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Uhh, the link to #6333 ... it's a really long discussion. Has this actually been resolved yet? I haven't followed it.

@paulklie
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Uhh, the link to #6333 ... it's a really long discussion. Has this actually been resolved yet? I haven't followed it.

No, though the discussion is mostly just about how to tag the fee for bicycles at the moment. This part seems to have no more discussions. However it might be better to wait for the rest anyway, will make this a draft for now.
Though maybe you could give feedback on the icon?

@paulklie paulklie marked this pull request as draft October 30, 2025 21:12
@westnordost
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Icon looks good


// aerial way: usually visible from looking at the aerial way, but not always...
184 to AddAerialwayBicycleAccess(),
185 to AddFerryFee(),
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this ordinal is already taken

@westnordost
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Is this otherwise ready to merge? It is marked as draft.

("""ways, relations with
route = ferry
and !fee
and !toll"""
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You could add the other values:

and !toll:bicycle
and !toll:hgv
and !toll:conditional

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

or better a wildcard

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@westnordost westnordost Feb 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

on the other hand, if any fee:.* or toll:.* is defined, I think it would still be missing data when fee/toll is not defined. So, isn't it fine to ask for fee then?

Hm.

Well, if we have fee:hgv=yes and otherwise nothing, it should probably be interpreted as "no fee for anyone but HGV".

But then, tagging fee=yes would be wrong. The question is, however, "Is there a fee for anyone to use this ferry?"

So, that's maybe the reason why we don't want to have any fee:.* at all in order to be able to ask this question?

The nature of the question is still a problem though, then. If the ferry costs only for motor vehicles, fee=yes alone would be wrong. It would need to be fee=no + fee:motor_vehicle=yes. The question however assumes that =yes should be tagged if anyone needs to pay a fee. So, maybe the quest itself just doesn't work out.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@mnalis mnalis Feb 11, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

TL;DR: the viable options for this quest (that I see) are:

  • Ask something like "Who must pay to use this ferry?", with answers "Everyone" (tags fee=yes), "Nobody" (tags fee=no) and "Some classes of travelers" (tags documented fee=unknown, or maybe better asks user to create a note with details / url / picture of the pricelist). I would skip anything with fee:* or toll:* already tagged in this case. Or,
  • instead have multiple quests1 which are simple yes/no answers, but ask separately for each category (motorcar, pedestrian, hgv, bicycle...) and thus we tag all the details right from the start. Better value, but more work.

Well, if we have fee:hgv=yes and otherwise nothing, it should probably be interpreted as "no fee for anyone but HGV".

Well, maybe, but not really - similar issue was discussed in #3219 (e.g. just because someone tagged only payment:cash=yes + payment:visa=yes does not necessarily imply payment:jcb=no -- it also likely that the data is partial, and the mapper did not have that card to check it)

Similarly, if you wen with car you might add payment:motorcar=yes (or =no), but have not checked whether HGV, BUS and other classes must pay. Or you might have seen the pricelist, but it was too complex for you to tag (e.g. only HGV above certain weight or size must pay etc.)

So, that's maybe the reason why we don't want to have any fee:.* at all in order to be able to ask this question?

I think the main reason is to avoid extreme complexity. If some fee:* is tagged, it means somebody (who by definition was better equipped than this SC Quest to tag this) has already surveyed it, and since the SC quest as proposed is veeery simple, it would be more likely to damage the data then improve it in such cases.

Thus, it's better to skip such cases, and only add data where it is completely missing - as some (even undetailed) information is better than none, and we avoid 95%+ of the complexity.

If the ferry costs only for motor vehicles, fee=yes alone would be wrong.

Hm, yeah... To me it seems clear that fee=no means "nobody has to pay anything ever, there isn't even equipment/personnel for paying".

However fee=yes does not seem to mean the inverse of no (i.e. "somebody has to pay in at least some cases") according to the wiki - but instead "A fee is generally charged" which I interpret to mean "vast majority of users have to pay"; and that answer would not work for things like "cars have to pay but pedestrians are free" ferry where there is no "vast majority" of either.

Wiki also mentions fee=unknown which means exact details of who and when has to pay are not mapped (and should be resurveyed via fee:conditional, fee:hgv and similar tags); but its information is not much better than no value being tagged (but may be useful for SC anyway as a way to skip that quest, i.e. similar to *:signed=no usages)

Footnotes

  1. or single quest which ask slightly different questions, and tags different answers.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm definitely too confused now by the overlap between the two PRs (#6726 and #6556). Should I just close mine so that the feedback stays in one place?

From practical mapping experience, especially in Alpine regions, toll=yes is commonly used even when only certain categories of users have to pay. Ah, and I'm going to go with toll=* now, because that was voted the winner in the forum btw.

Some example:

  • Silvretta Hochalpenstraße (way/229835574) has toll=yes, although pedestrians and cyclists are free, and even some public transport buses are free but tourist buses not.
  • Kaunertaler Gletscherstraße (way/747876761) is tagged toll=yes under similar real-world conditions.
  • Ötztaler Gletscherstraße (way/46613597) uses toll=yes with explicit exemptions (toll:bicycle=no, toll:foot=no).
  • Timmelsjoch (way/28048067) has toll=yes and toll:bicycle=no, but no toll:foot=no, even though pedestrians do not pay.

In practice, toll=yes is widely used to indicate that some category of road user must pay, not necessarily all users. It does not seem to be interpreted as “everyone must pay”, but rather as “this road/ferry is toll-operated”.

Based on this real-world tagging practice, I would argue that using toll=yes for ferries where some vehicle classes must pay is consistent with existing OSM usage. From my experience with ferries so far, I personally don't know of any ferry where you can travel for free on any form of transport (well, the Lake Constance ferry is operated by the municipal utilities, just like the local public transport system).
The question is therefore: How large is the proportion of ferries on which only certain modes of transport pay, but not all?

That said, the discussion highlights a legitimate semantic ambiguity. Two possible future improvements could be:

  1. Add follow-up quests that explicitly ask whether pedestrians or cyclists must pay.
  2. Replace the simple Yes/No question with a multi-select approach (similar to the recycling quest), allowing users to select which user groups must pay. (I did this also with the SCEE guidepost quest)
  3. Leave the quest unchanged as it is now.

For now, this quest intentionally captures only the basic information (toll=yes / toll=no) and could skip objects where more detailed toll:* or fee:* tagging already exists, to avoid overwriting more specific data.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

personally don't know of any ferry where you can travel for free on any form of transport

Ferries that cross the Nord-Ostsee-Kanal are free

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

personally don't know of any ferry where you can travel for free on any form of transport

River crossing ferries in Poland are often free, for multiple reasons (can elaborate if relevant).

@mcliquid
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

mcliquid commented Feb 8, 2026

On the icon: I am not sure what background color would be best

I think green is fine. The general fee quest and the toilet fee quest are also green.

@westnordost
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Closing this draft PR because there is a PR that basically does the same and this one is outdated.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

new quest accepted new quest proposal (if marked as blocked, it may require upstream work first)

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants