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

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Tue Jan 17 13:20:19 GMT 2012

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> 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.

I wasn't talking about every bit of land owned by a government.  I'm
talking about public rights of way with legal use restrictions.

"No bicycles" is not bicycle=private, it's bicycle=no.  Why is that?

> OSM currently doesn't do anything with ownership AFAIK.

The definition of *=private is "Only with permission of the owner on
an individual basis".

A military base, owned by the government, might very well fall under
that description.  Permission to enter is given out *on an individual
basis*.  A public right of way with a sign that says "no horses" or
"no bicycles" or "buses only" does not.  Permission is not given out
*on an individual basis*.

More information about the Tagging mailing list