[Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

Sergio Manzi smz at smz.it
Sat Mar 2 10:07:55 UTC 2019

On 2019-03-02 09:49, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Mar 2, 2019, 2:05 AM by smz at smz.it:
>     I really-really-really like to know of a place where emergency vehicles are *legally *not allowed to go...
>     And if there isn't such a place, why do we need ""?
>     And if we don't have such a need, why do we need "emergency=yes"?
>     Because a given road is *accessible *to a emergency vehicles?
> Apparently people like to explicitly tag in some situations.

The problem (/as I see it.../) is that it isn't clear at all what they are trying to explicitly tag.

Once a again:

  * a legal right? Absurd, as emergency vehicles always have that right.
  * physical accessibility? Absurd, as it doesn't state to which kind of vehicles (/small police car or humongous fire truc//k?/).

IMHO emergency=yes and emergency=no should be deprecated, as simple as that.

If there are physical restrictions (/weight, width, height/), tag that.

> Though in all cases when I used it I should be using emergency=designated
> (road was signed as firefighter access road or main ambulance access at the hospital).

... and that's a different story, because this is valuable information for non-emergency vehicles: "you can't go there!"

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190302/ba7f2cc8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3675 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190302/ba7f2cc8/attachment-0001.bin>

More information about the Tagging mailing list