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

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Tue Aug 14 00:08:34 UTC 2018

On 14/08/18 02:09, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> 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'.
With access=no and no other modes allowed it still is worth mapping.
It makes sense to map what is 'on the ground'.

The way is still there, you can see it and go past it.
It is visible and can be used as a navigation point as you pass it.

Possibly the way may be open in the future.
In an emergency it may be useful.
It is still there, so it goes in the data base.

If you were to pass a way that is not on the map ..
would you would not add it?

More information about the Tagging mailing list