[Tagging] access=no (was Amenity swimming_pool (was Amenity parking))

[Colin Smale]

On 17/01/2012 03:31, Anthony wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM, John Sturdy<jcg.sturdy at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> I understand "access=no" as meaning no *public* access, but perhaps
>> that is better covered by "access=private".
> access=private doesn't make much sense on land that is publicly owned.
>
Right of access is different from ownership. Not every bit of land owned 
by a government is public. What about an army base? What about council 
administrative offices? Publicly owned, but private access. UK public 
footpaths on the other hand illustrate the opposite scenario: legally 
entrenched right of access across property owned (mostly) privately.

OSM currently doesn't do anything with ownership AFAIK.

Colin