[Tagging] Fwd: Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com
Sun Aug 12 21:43:54 UTC 2018


On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:37 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> If there are people who can access, you should prefer “private” over no.
>
> IMHO we should remove “for the general public” in the above definition. Where did you find this sentence?

This is where I continue to be confused.

Presumably the land owner can always access, which has made the
distinction between 'private' and 'no' unclear to me. By your
definition, the only justification for 'no' would be that a way is
impassable, in which case, why isn't it abandoned:highway=whatever,
rather than highway=whatever access=no?

On the other hand, 'no' meaning 'landowner and designees only', while
'private' means 'some third parties may access, but no permission
routinely granted to the general public' would make eminent sense.



More information about the Tagging mailing list