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

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com
Mon Aug 13 16:09:47 UTC 2018

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:07 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 13. Aug 2018, at 14:35, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > All I was attempting here was to point out that access=no is different from
> > access=private and can have valid uses.   It's not crazy to have both.  It may be rare to have access=no, but any time
> > you see a sign "No vehicles beyond this point" it applies.
> actually that is vehicle=no
> Still I agree with the rest of what you wrote, there is a distinction of private and no, at least conceptually (not so sure about actual tagging), and no would expectly be much fewer than anything else.

OK, mostly makes sense. 'no' = 'impassable', 'you can't
drive/cycle/ride here because of hazards.'
'private' = 'forbidden', 'you can't drive/cycle/ride here because the
landowner/government doesn't allow it.'

'access=no' standing alone (not 'transport_mode=no', not 'access=no
transport_mode=something') is still pretty nonsensical - what is the
point of mapping a way that's impassable to everything? When is a way
not a way? It does indeed make sense when some transport mode has an
answer other than 'no'.

More information about the Tagging mailing list