[Tagging] Fwd: Missing access value (access=license / authorization?)
pla16021 at gmail.com
Sun Aug 12 23:00:10 UTC 2018
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com>
> 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?
OK then. Two parallel highways carrying cars. Linked by a bridge that is
not suitable for cars. Preferably (to answer
a point made by somebody else) with legal restrictions saying no cars can
use the bridge.
However contrived, there will be cases where the bridge itself does not
permit access to motor vehicles even though
the way leading up to it does. As in "no vehicles beyond this point."
Now I think about it, I've recently seen a road, which turns into a track,
which leads to a slipway. The track had a sign
saying no access to vehicles because the track was in a poor state of
repair. Admittedly, it was more to limit the council's
legal liability than a flat out you-will-be-prosecuted prohibition, but it
was part of a public way with no access to
motor vehicles. Which I didn't map because the sign said the prohibition
was temporary (it will be months before
I go that way again, if ever).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging