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

[Colin Smale]

On 17/01/2012 14:20, Anthony wrote:
> 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.
>
Forgive me, you used the phrase "publicly owned" and I jumped to the 
conclusion you were talking about land owned by {local,central} 
governments, and there is plenty of that, much of which is off-limits to 
the general public. I still have problems making sense of your assertion 
that access=private doesn't make much sense on land that is publicly owned.