[Tagging] Fwd: Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)
pla16021 at gmail.com
Sun Aug 12 21:48:24 UTC 2018
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 10:43 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com>
> This is where I continue to be confused.
I am confused by many things, these days. But not by this.
> 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?
Consider a bridge which is structurally strong enough for pedestrians,
cyclists and maybe even horses but which would
collapse if a vehicle drove over it. The distinction between "private" and
"no" for vehicles then becomes clear. Even the
owner would not drive a vehicle over it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging