[Tagging] access=designated wiki

[Warin]

On 24/07/2015 11:42 PM, Hubert wrote:
> access=designated wiki
>
> Well, there a ways that are “designated” for specific road users but 
> are not marked explicitly and must be recognized through their design.
>

I would put that as

There are ways that are intended for a specific road use...

> For example sidewalks. They are designated for pedestrians and could 
> tag – ignoring the tag it as a sub key discussion – as highway=footway 
> (implying foot=designated).
>
> Same for cycle ways, at least in Germany as you might know (Pictures 1 
> and 2).
>
> So requiring a way to be marked is too strong for that definition.
>
True. access=designated is not what you want.

What is wrong with using the tag bicycle=yes ? Bicycles are 'permitted' 
.. but not necessarily marked by/on the roadway.

> Hubert
>
> Picture 1 : 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:RadwegOhneBenutzungspflicht.jpg
>
> Picture 2 : 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:GetrennterRadUndGehweg.jpeg
>
> *From:*jonathan at bigfatfrog67.me [mailto:jonathan at bigfatfrog67.me]
> *Sent:* Freitag, 24. Juli 2015 15:05
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> *Subject:* Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki
>
> I agree with Volker.  To me designated meant “what it is says on the 
> roadside signage”.  Usually seen where there are unique or special 
> circumstances restricting access.
>
> Jonathan
>
> http://bigfatfrog67.me
>
> *From:*Warin <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>
> *Sent:* ‎Friday‎, ‎24‎ ‎July‎ ‎2015 ‎13‎:‎50
> *To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
> <mailto:tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>
> On 24/07/2015 9:30 PM, Hubert wrote:
>
>     Hallo,
>
>     during a discussion within the german forum [1], I have been
>     pointed to the description box of the “access=designated” wikipage
>     [2].
>
>     It reads “A way marked for a particular use.”.
>
>     I would like to change it to “A way designated for a particular
>     use” or “A way intended for a particular use.”. Probably the
>     latter one.
>
>     The reason is, that the word “marked” implies that a way is ,well,
>     marked with a traffic sign or by road paintings, which is not
>     necessarily true.
>
>     Also the topic ”general use case” is not that strictly formulated
>     as the “description” box and allows the use of “designated” in a
>     much wider range of cases.
>
>     Are there any objections against me change that word?
>
>
> For me, Yes.
>
Meaning I object.

>
> If it is not marked .. than how do you (or anyone) know that it is 
> 'designated'?
>
> Ummm 'marked' could mean it is 'marked' on some plan or other rather 
> than 'marked' by a traffic sign or by road painting ... but I'd think 
> if it is not marked locally then the 'designation' will be ineffective.
> OSM is supposed to reflect what is 'on the ground' so marked is 
> appropriate. Particularly by a traffic sign or by road painting.
>
> Happy to be persuaded otherwise...
> Could you provide a link to the German discussion? That may help.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150725/d7c2eba1/attachment-0001.html>