[Tagging] Clarification unclassified vs residential

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 2, 2019, 11:07 AM by smz at smz.it:

> On 2019-03-02 09:49, Mateusz Konieczny      wrote:
>
>>
>> Mar 2, 2019, 2:05 AM by >> smz at smz.it <mailto: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.
>
>
Purpose of road? Explicit signage (again, emergency=designated should be used for 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!"
>
>
Nope. Access may be designated for multiple uses or one use designated and other
allowed. 

Probably the most common case:

highway=path
bicycle=designated
foot=designated
segregated=no
surface=asphalt

for mixed footway and cycleway.

In my experience such roads are often accessible also to normal vehicles, 
just parking is forbidden.

There are also cycleways (bicycle=designated explicit or implicit via highway=cycleway)
where some motor vehicles are allowed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190302/83e1e64a/attachment.html>