[Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

[Tod Fitch]

My reading of the wiki [1] indicates that the more specific tag overrides the less specific tag. And the transport mode section [2] of that has examples very much like those in your question.

So:
access=no
foot=yes

Means that all access other than foot is prohibited.

And:
access=yes
bicycle=no

Means you can walk, drive or ride a horse, etc. but you can’t bicycle.

For what its worth, I just had a question along this same line for a trail in a local wilderness park that I edited a year or so ago. All I did was split the way and keep the existing tagging (which I agreed with). But apparently the Strava app had a problem with the tagging (access=no, foot=designated, bicycle=designated), so I guess my reading of the wiki doesn’t match all data consumers implementations.

Cheers,

Tod

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Transport_mode_restrictions

> On Aug 5, 2020, at 1:44 PM, Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> If:
> access=no
> foot=yes
> 
> Does this mean that all access except foot travel is prohibited, or is it an error?
> 
> If:
> access=yes
> bicycle=no
> 
> Does this mean that all access except bicycle travel is allowed, or is an error?
> 
> Here is one example of the first case:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/834296397 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/834296397>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200805/cb8d3574/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200805/cb8d3574/attachment.sig>