osm at inbox.org
Thu Dec 10 05:53:06 GMT 2009
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Yep. Fortunately, there aren't too many ways which use both highway=*
> > barrier=*.
> Yeah...but still. I'm not a fan of having "bicycle=no" mean two
> similar, but distinctly different things, when applied to different
> kinds of objects. There's no way everyone's going to remember those
> subtleties, and the different meanings will leak from one to the
> other. Technically, this approach possible. Pragmatically and
> socially, it seems unwise.
> And besides, it's just as likely that we'd want to tag the legalities
> of a barrier, as the practicalities. And then how would we do *that*?
Hmm, thinking about it I'm not so sure we aren't mapping the legalities, at
least not in situations where it makes sense to ask the question of whether
or not crossing a barrier is legal. The purpose of a barrier, at least a
barrier in a public way, is to make the illegal impractical.
> (I think. Maybe it only makes sense to tag the legalities of the
> things on either side: the park is vehicle=no, the path leading to it
> is vehicle=yes, maybe the barrier doesn't need a legal status
There are quite a lot of barriers which are vehicle=yes on both sides, but
vehicle=no for the barrier. Both legally and practically.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging