[Tagging] Climbing access path

[Tom Pfeifer]

Tobias Knerr wrote, on 2014-08-08 12:55:>
 > access=destination makes sense. That second tag isn't established,
 > though, nor is the concept of "explaining the details" through a
 > destination=* subtag.

At least it helps the fellow mapper why the access was tagged so,
and is easier than a note=

Am 08/ago/2014 um 12:47 schrieb k4r573n <k4r573n at googlemail.com>:
>> [1] http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/4uP

<german> Elbi, sag ich doch :-) <german>

>> In my opinion these paths shouldn't be used by default and we need a tag
>> to ensure routers and renders have a possibility to do so.
>>
>> access=destination
>> destination=climbing
>>
>> seams to be the best possibility

Martin Koppenhoefer wrote, on 2014-08-08 13:01:>
>
> If there are legally binding signs, yes, if the legal significance of the signs is
 > something like:"it would be kind if you won't use this path, because it is narrow

The legality would come from the code of conduct in the National Park not to leave
the marked paths, thus no need for physical signs,

http://www.nationalpark-saechsische-schweiz.de/besucherinformation/verhalten/

however there might be unambiguous signs as well:

http://www.nationalpark-saechsische-schweiz.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/13-Verhalten.jpg

Tom
(just learned the difference between the green and the black triangle)