[Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

Mike Thompson miketho16 at gmail.com
Wed Aug 5 21:19:47 UTC 2020

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 2:59 PM Tod Fitch <tod at fitchfamily.org> wrote:

> My reading of the wiki [1] indicates that the more specific tag overrides
> the less specific tag.

would then be redundant.  I don't have an example, but I have seen that too.

> 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.
Makes sense, as long as that is what the consensus is.

However, access=yes is a pretty broad statement.  There may be modes of
transport not yet contemplated (or which the mapper, and even the land
manager is not aware of) which in the future will be prohibited.

> 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.
Even the default renderer treats it different if access=no, and one or more
other modes =yes.  Not that we should tag for the renderer, but it
indicates that perhaps the maintainers of the default rendering style may
not (yet) have incorporated this understanding.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200805/16d32071/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list