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

Graeme Fitzpatrick graemefitz1 at gmail.com
Sun Aug 12 21:47:10 UTC 2018

On 13 August 2018 at 07:36, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>

> On 12. Aug 2018, at 23:30, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> In cases when only official vehicles (National Parks, Water supply etc)
> are allowed, I've always called that vehicles=no, working on " *no* – No
> access for the general public."?
> 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?

Map features page for restrictions
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features#Restrictions, but teh same
definition is also listed on the "Allowed access" field for any road eg
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=17/-28.07754/153.42441, & also on
the key:access wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180813/d88bd55a/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list