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

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com
Mon Aug 13 01:34:13 UTC 2018

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 7:01 PM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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).

Yeah, transport_mode=no makes sense. 'access=no' (without a specific
mode) is still pretty weird, as is 'motor_vehicle=no' on any way of a
grade 'unclassified' or higher. I've certainly tagged doubletrack as
'highway=track motor_vehicle=no' (if it's impassible), so I suppose
your distinction makes sense for specific transport modes, and some
combination like 'access=no foot=yes' for a way that can be passed
only afoot would make sense. Hmm, for that matter, I've wondered how
to tag a way across a wetland that's accessible to snowshoe, ski,
snowmobile, but impassible in summer - and conditioning 'access=no
foot=yes @ snow, etc' would be one way to approach that one.

Come to think of it, there's a way near me that is still a numbered
highway, that's impassable to motor vehicles but open as a footway. It
was wiped out in a landslide in 2011, and the county still hasn't
raised the money to rebuild. Both ends are gated. There are a couple
of local residents with keys to the gates, and of course it's open to
emergency access, but it's not *possible* to drive straight
through.(It's a nice hike, with some really interesing geology on that
dormant earthquake fault.) The alternative route is still posted as a
'detour'.. It looks pretty odd when rendered:
 but at this point, it's a 'highway=path' that's part of a
'route=road' with a network and a ref. I tagged it as a path, though,
since the area that crosses the slide is too narrow for mountain bikes
to pass abreast. Maybe I ought to add abandoned:highway=tertiary, but
they still supposedly plan to fix it someday.

I'll use 'highway=track motor_vehicle=no' as well for some of the
older ways around here that are platted as public highways, but were
built before the advent of the automobile and never improved for
automobile traffic. It's still perfectly lawful to walk, or to ride a
horse, mountain bike, or ATV, or snowmobile on them - they're
non-motor-vehicle public roads. (And once in a while the emergency
services will push through them in a Humvee or equivalent.)

I guess where we split is that I tend to tag these odd cases based on
the use that they currently support, and not what they legally are or
may have been. If something is now a path, like the road over the
logging bridge in my earlier photo, that's what I tag it, even though
that bridge was obviously once a track or even an 'unclassified'. The
cases that get dodgy are the ones where the actual status has
deteriorated below the legal status, as in, "this is a public
right-of-way, and it would be legal to drive here, but I'd only
attempt it in a 4WD in dry weather.' That's most likely too subjective
to map.

More information about the Tagging mailing list