[Tagging] access=disabled

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu May 10 22:48:18 UTC 2018


On 10/05/18 23:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 10. May 2018, at 05:04, Johnparis <okosm at johnfreed.com 
> <mailto:okosm at johnfreed.com>> wrote:
>
>> If it's exclusive the normal tagging would be:
>>
>> access=no
>> disabled=yes
>
>
>
> I think capacity tagging would be better (if referring to who can park 
> there), or is really the access restricted?
Legally the spaces I am tagging are only meant for disabled parking.
>
>
>>
>> ...to be consistent with other such, like
>> access=no
>> bus=yes
>>
>> Though I would argue that they all should use the access: prefix in 
>> this case
>>
>> access=no
>> access:disabled=yes

That is not consistent with access=customer/forestry/delivery/agricultural?



>
>
> there are some of these
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/access%3Adisabled
> but the mostly used value is “no”, probably this is an inconsistency 
> (not about legal access but about accessibility)
>
The no value is some 500, combine values yes and designated and you get 
~800.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180511/0727d67d/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list