[Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Aug 5 22:06:58 UTC 2020

Am Mi., 5. Aug. 2020 um 23:21 Uhr schrieb Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com

> 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.

+1, "access=*" is a pretty broad statement. Generally the suggestion is to
use more specific tags for access and not "access", e.g. vehicle=no or
While "access=*" is not an error, the situations where it is used could
often be better tagged with either "vehicle" or "motor_vehicle".

For example, from a strict reading of the wiki, "access=no" and "foot=yes"
would also imply emergency=no, disabled=no, dog=no, ski=no,
inline_skates=no and any other transport mode that we will introduce in the
(emergency might be hyperbole, the wiki also states: "Note that emergency
vehicles are generally not restricted by *legal* access rules"


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200806/c756276e/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list