[talk-au] Unsuitable for caravans

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 19:56:03 +1100
Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:25 PM, John Smith
> <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nope I meant what I said, access:caravan=* same with access:4wd=*
> 
> As I understand it, foot, motorcar, bicycle, hgv etc are all
> considered subtags of the access tag. So, for consistency, it would be
> caravan=no, just like it's foot=no, motorcar=no...
> 
> Steve
> 
>
a complete subtag like caravan=no
will cause misunderstandings with those highway tags which mark a
cycleway as part of the way
sample 
highway=secondary
cycleway=lane
caravan=no

will the caravan=no belong on the cycleway or will it belong on the
main way?

however
highway=secondary
cycleway=lane
access:highway:caravan=maybe
would be clear.

This discussion just informs us that the access tagging system has
faults.