[Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Mateusz Konieczny]

May 21, 2020, 11:31 by frederik at remote.org:

> If we map "highway=path" + "danger=you will be shot" and then someone
> gets shot because their Android app only looked at highway=path, can we
> *really* sit back and say "their fault, we don't map for the Android app"?
>
In that case access=no really should be also added.

Adding "highway=path" + "danger=you will be shot" without "access=no"
is a really poor idea.

Routing someone over "access=no" is a really dumb idea.

Though displaying "access=no" in a clear way is sadly tricky :(

> Sorry if this is somewhere on the Wiki, I love the Wiki for
> documentation but I hate Wiki discussions with all my heart and cannot
> bring myself to read them, much less participate in them.
>
You are doing plenty of other useful things :)

BWT, yesterday I added to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Dno

"This tag is a proper method to mark existing objects such as path as 
existing but illegal to use. It includes illegal railway crossings, illegal 
paths through nature reserves etc. Such objects can be mapped but 
should be tagged as illegal to use by adding access=no."

+ photo of an illegal footway through rails
(shown currently below infobox) with description

"Illegal railway crossing (with "illegal railway crossing, 
2 people died here and 2 were injured" sign). 

Such highway=footway needs access=no to make clear 
that it should not be used, for example, in routing."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200521/3822da87/attachment.htm>