[Tagging] Fwd: Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)
kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com
Sun Aug 12 22:28:14 UTC 2018
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:49 PM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Is that not a highway=footway, cycleway, path, bridleway? In any of
those cases, it would be assumed to be motor_vehicle=no. If it was
once a road bridge, it could also be abandoned:highway=unclassified or
whatever. That's how I mapped
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14919563634 - highway=path
foot=yes horse=yes ski=yes bicycle=no snowmobile=no
abandoned:highway=track bridge=yes surface=wood
And by contrast, https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14920137133 is
demolished:highway=track while the rubble at the right side of the
image is demolished:man_made=dam highway=path ford=yes et cetera.
Except that I didn't map it, because I didn't attempt the crossing.
I'd already fallen in the [expletive deleted] river once that day, and
that was one time too many.
An unvarnished 'access=no' sounds just plain weird to me - as if
asserting that a way is not a way.
More information about the Tagging