[Tagging] access=disabled

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Thu May 10 23:01:01 UTC 2018

2018-05-11 0:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com>:

> On 10/05/18 23:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 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.

i.e. it is forbidden to cross the parking by foot if you are not disabled?

there are some of these
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

according to the wiki, agricultural, forestry, customers etc. are _values_
for access tags:
(agricultural is also a vehicle class though).

"disabled" are a class of users (see "by use"):

Their documented tag is "disabled=*"

Why would we want to push tag fragmentation by promoting a different tag
with not even half the usage and a third of questionable "no" values?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180511/4364eb44/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list