[Tagging] New access tag value needed?

Martin Vonwald imagic.osm at gmail.com
Fri Jun 1 11:47:43 BST 2012

2012/6/1 Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl>:
> When a UK sign says "unsuitable for motor vehicles" or "unsuitable for HGVs"
> it means "discouraged" in your terms. There is no guarantee that you *will*
> get into problems, but it is just a strong warning. A road that becomes a
> muddy track might present a problem for a normal car, but a trial bike or a
> tractor would be fine. The warning is probably not enforceable, i.e. if you
> ignore it you couldn't get a ticket for that fact alone; luckily for many
> drivers it's not illegal to be an idiot.
> So if the word "unsuitable" has the above semantics in normal use, it would
> make sense to me to call it "unsuitable" in the tagging instead of
> "discouraged" and using "unsuitable" to mean something else.
> How about "unsuitable" (i.e. preferably not) and "impassable" (i.e. don't
> even think about it)?

So what you mean is:
* unsuitable: allowed: yes, possible: may be not
* impassable: allowed: yes, possible: most certainly not

When I read this, I have to admit: this doesn't sound like something
that belongs into an access tag any more to me.

When you wrote "impassable" I immediately thought about the
smoothness-key, which "provides a classification scheme regarding the
physical usability of a way for wheeled vehicles. " Despite the name
"smoothness" it might fit the purpose if combined with the vehicle
type, e.g. smoothness:hgv=impassable . But I'm not really convinced of
it myself.

Or maybe another key like e.g. passable? Extendible with a vehicle
type and with (more or less) the same values as smoothness. So
"unsuitable" would translate to passable:<vehicle>=bad and
"impassable" to passable:<vehicle>=impassable.


* passable:<vehicle>=

More information about the Tagging mailing list