osm at inbox.org
Thu Dec 10 06:07:58 GMT 2009
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:53 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> 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.
The problem with using an access tag on a highway which is also a barrier is
that the access tag on a barrier goes perpendicular, but the access tag on a
highway goes along the way. We could probably define access tags on
barriers in terms of legality and not practicality, and still have the vast
majority of them be correct (at least, if we treated no as equivalent to
private and yes as equivalent to permissive in terms of non-public land,
which is probably necessary for highway tags as well (I don't know about
you, but I'd tag a road through an ungated apartment complex as bicycle=yes
even though technically according to the wiki it should be
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging