[Tagging] new access value

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Oct 6 09:15:17 UTC 2015


2015-10-06 10:45 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch>:

> People, sometimes creatively, put lots of stuff on signs that don't
> necessarily correspond to the set of values that is actually supported
> by law*. It frankly doesn't make sense to try and capture each fine
> semantic difference (wit visitor vs. destination), particularly as  it
> may simply be misguided to start with.
>


I'm not convinced. IF there are subtle differences I find it desirable to
try to capture them. If there aren't (in jurisdiction), we don't have to
capture them, naturally.



>
> Your Anrainer vs. Anrainerverkehr example for AT doesn't seem to be any
> different than the Anwohner/Anlieger difference in DE
>


It seems that "Anwohner frei" (old sign, not used any more, but can still
be found) and "Anlieger frei" as additional signs for access restrictions
do have the same meaning (read this in different places in the web,
apparently it is written in BayObLG, DAR 81, 18; OLG Düsseldorf NZV 92, 85,
which I found only behind a pay wall and have not read in the original).
"Anwohner frei" as a parking restriction should be replaced by "Bewohner
frei"(?).



, which
> semantically for routing purposes boils down to private/destination
> (which I suspect most routers wouldn't actually differentiate in any case).
>


whether the routers do evaluate these rules specifically should not matter
to us. We should try to capture the reality, also in subtle details, so
that someone _could_ interpret the data precisely if he wanted to.

I agree that "destination" sh/could be the correct access restriction for
these cases, but it isn't well defined in the wiki at the moment.

Cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20151006/2ba5e254/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list