[Tagging] Climbing access path

k4r573n k4r573n at googlemail.com
Fri Aug 8 19:34:45 UTC 2014

concluded there are areas where behavior guidelines (see links below)
introduce paths not for general public but for climbers.
(Tom thanks for the links)

therefore we definitely should use:

This single tag might be sufficient. And an other tag would just
simplify rendering...
Anyway - what are your thoughts about
path=climbing_access (about 391 occurrences according to taginfo)

it might be used to show a main usage of a path


On 08.08.2014 13:38, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> 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.
> 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,
> [3]
> http://www.nationalpark-saechsische-schweiz.de/besucherinformation/verhalten/
> however there might be unambiguous signs as well:
> [2]
> 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)

More information about the Tagging mailing list