[Tagging] New access tag value needed?

[Martin Vonwald]

2012/5/31 Philip Barnes <phil at trigpoint.me.uk>:
> On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 14:41 +0200, Martin Vonwald wrote:
>> 2012/5/31 Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com>:
>> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-17530125
>> >
>> > (lorry stuck on very tight corner)
>> >
>> > This is tagged hgv=unsuitable in OSM
>> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/69590803
>>
>> In my opinion this doesn't need a special tag. Because the geometry of
>> the way (together with the tag width, if necessary) should carry
>> enough information.
> Where there is signage stating 'Un-suitable For HGV', then the tag is
> valid and should be used, as should 'Un-suitable For Motors', although
> there are a few that I doubt the validity of.
>
> A couple of Google examples http://goo.gl/maps/JoD9 and
> http://goo.gl/maps/LCw9. I love the 2nd, 'Unsuitable For Motors'
> combined with NSL.

Thanks for the examples. I wasn't aware that some real signposts
exists for this. So actually we would need two values:
* unsuitable: if you are allowed to drive/go there, but you most
certainly are not able to
* discouraged: if you are able to drive/go there, you are also allowed
to, but you should not

The value "discouraged" would be the correct one for Rob's second
example (the UK cycle paths). The value "unsuitable" would fit your
example ("Unsuitable for motor vehicles").

But we have to make sure, that this values are only applied if real
indications (e.g. signposts) are present and not e.g. if one just
thinks that some vehicle can not drive there.

Also for most data consumers (I guess) there wouldn't be any
difference between "unsuitable" and "no". The value "discouraged"
might be used for routers to add some penalty to a way.

Any more opinions on this?

regards,
Martin