[Tagging] access -> emergency vehicle class ----- (pulling from "path vs. footway")
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Dec 1 12:16:22 UTC 2014
I copied this last paragraph from the path vs. footway discussion to get
comments of more people interested in it (I guess not so many longtime
contributors are interested in reading yet another time the path vs.
According to the access page, "emergency" is not an access value (like e.g.
"forestry"), but it is a vehicle category, currently in the wiki specified
as "by use":
Look at the definition, I'd read this as "it is not necessary that there is
an emergency, but it is necessary that the vehicle is of an emergency
vehicle class (like police cars, ambulances, etc.)." so actually there
might be a problem: e.g. "hov" and "hazmat" and "disabled" are actually
classes that are defined by use: access will not be forbidden to any truck
that can transport hazardous material, but only to those that actually do
right now. "emergency" by it's current definition doesn't fit into this
scheme as it seems to be independent from the "use", maybe this should go
under motor_vehicle -> double_tracked -> emergency.
On the other hand, "use" can have different meanings: it can be the current
use in this very instant or it can be the general type of use (e.g. if I
bought myself an ambulance but won't offer services or register and insure
the vehicle as an ambulance I won't be able to enter roads that are
reserved for emergency vehicles). Also "emergency" is somehow misleading,
as probably any kind of transport of an ill person will allow an ambulance
to enter a restricted road, regardless of the urgency.
What do you think? Do we need refinements or should we move the "emergency"
vehicle class from "by use" to the more general motor_vehicle ->
double_tracked -> emergency category? Also note that "agricultural" is
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging