[Tagging] Small gate only for foot access

osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au
Fri Apr 20 12:03:44 UTC 2018

Just because it’s not as often used in this way doesn’t mean it’s wrong.


It would be in line with the usage I’ve seen in the access:lanes tag, e.g. access:lanes=yes|yes|bus or access:lanes=bicycle|yes|hsv


I’m not questioning that:




is correct to allow access for foot traffic only.


It’s just that from the usage that I’ve seen, access=foot should have the same meaning.


Obviously, the moment you want to define access for more than a single branch of the access tree, or you want to be able to specify an access level that’s different than yes, you will need to use the individual tags.


From: Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com> 
Sent: Friday, 20 April 2018 21:07
To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Small gate only for foot access


On 20/04/2018 11:26, osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au <mailto:osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au>  wrote:

I believe the correct shorthand for access=no foot=yes would be just access=foot ?

That's not the way that access tags generally work.

There are 784 at taginfo: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/access=foot 

but it's much lower than the other values: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/access#values

which is usually an indication that "that's not the right tag for that".

The access section in the wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Aaccess isn't the clearest of sections, but it does try and explain how these work.

Best Regards,


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180420/ca1811f3/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list