[Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

Jarek PiĆ³rkowski jarek at piorkowski.ca
Thu Aug 6 02:26:53 UTC 2020

On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 17:20, Mike Thompson <miketho16 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> So,
> access=yes
> foot=yes
> would then be redundant.  I don't have an example, but I have seen that too.

Technically yes, but there are some cases when tagging redundancy is
worth it or even useful for clarity.

For example, if it's in an area where you might expect access=* or
foot=* to be no, access=yes can be used to confirm that the way _is_
in fact open to the public (signed public route through a private
area, perhaps? like a golf course or a quarry?) and foot=yes can be
used to confirm that pedestrians do have access there as well (perhaps
it's on a motorway but pedestrians are allowed for some reason?).

You can also use this to communicate the actual value of the access=*
tag to your fellow mappers. In an area where access is unclear, if you
tag access=yes, you are saving other mappers from wondering if the way
is actually public, or if it has not yet been surveyed/edited to add
access=private. (In programming terms, access=yes is true, access=no
is false, and lack of an access=* tag is null)

> 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.

If the land manager is not aware of a mode of transport, are they
really in position to prohibit it right now? And in the future,
pedestrians could be prohibited too, and tagging would have to change
as well.


More information about the Tagging mailing list