osm at inbox.org
Thu Dec 10 04:32:33 GMT 2009
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> > *Sigh*. I'll bite. What would be a fence which is a barrier to one, but
> > not to the other? You know barrier doesn't mean "impenetrable", right?
> Well a series of boulders is a barrier to vehicles, but not even
> noticeable to pedestrians.
But it isn't a fence.
> > Yes, you are. And presumably certain types of barriers have different
> > defaults. But a fence which allows access?
> Sure, like fences around golf driving ranges that protect people
> outside from golf balls, but might have gaps.
Not sure I'd call that a fence, and even less sure I'd call it a
barrier=fence. I don't know, though.
> >> Oh, and add barrier=barricade, for a low anti-car obstruction.
> >> (barrier=roadblock? I'm thinking of these barriers you often see around
> >> parks here, two vertical poles with a long vertical pole bolted across,
> >> about knee height. Usually treated pine.)
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dcycle_barrier ?
> Pretty similar - but poorly named for this instance.
Most OSM tags are poorly named for a lot of instances. Personally, I've
learned to treat them like terms in a foreign language.
> The barriers I'm
> thinking of have to do with bicycles - they keep cars out of
> pedestrian areas.
That's specifically addressed on that web page.
Incidentally, I notice that the definitions of "bicycle=yes",
> "bicycle=no" on that page conflict with what has been said elsewhere
> on this thread - they define practical access, not legal access.
Yep. Fortunately, there aren't too many ways which use both highway=* and
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging