[Tagging] Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking)
flukas.robot+osm at gmail.com
Mon Jan 16 19:08:41 GMT 2012
That is what I am saying - access=no is useful as a generic value to
make exceptions (like foot=yes) from.
2012/1/16 Ben Johnson <tangararama at gmail.com>:
> On 16/01/2012, at 6:45, LM_1 <flukas.robot+osm at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Given that absolutely everything on the planet is accessible by at least someone with the right authority, permission, ownership, special equipment, etc. is there ever a need for access=no ?
>> As a default in combination with eg. access=no, foot=yes meaning
>> nothing except foot - it is easier than excluding each use
>> access=no alone is really not usable. Maybe for paths in places of
>> nuclear explosions.
> But is (access=no and foot=yes) the same as just foot=yes?
> My thinking is they are different. foot=yes in isolation leaves open the possibility of other access methods open, whereas if used in conjunction with access=no, it is confirmed as strictly foot only.
> As for nuclear explosions... it's dangerous, but you still can go there. You'd be highly advised to take special equipment!
> access=no alone would be useful for a wildlife reserve where absolutely no humans are ever allowed under any circumstances, but I know of no such place!
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging