[talk-au] access=destination was [Ticket#2021093010000048] HighRouleur

[forster at ozonline.com.au]

oops, forgot to add these

Multiple entrances with restricting signage
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-37.83471/145.03179  (Scotch College)

Multiple entrances gated and signed (Museum, Carlton Gardens)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/209893402

Multiple entrances gatedand signed
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/753594786 (Selandra Rise Retirement Village)


> Hi all
>
> Up to now I have only questioned Sebastian (HighRouleur) on his
> information sources and reasoning on the use of access=destination
>
> First going to the wiki: "Transit traffic forbidden, all non-transit
> traffic to a given element allowed."
>
> But I am aware that the wiki does not trump common OSM usage so I would
> like to check with the community.
>
> It seems that its a nonsense to use access=destination on roads that
> have no connection to the rest of the world, how can you forbid what is
> impossible. Likewise its a nonsense for where there is one point of
> connection. Should the destination tag be removed from all these?
>
> Zero connections to the world
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/164040247
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/164040219
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148171270
>
> one entrance
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/632504904
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/551195212
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/563380640
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48162492
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/176876122
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117893671
>
> Then there are networks that connect at two or more places to the world
> but there is no restrictive signage. I would remove the destination tag.
>
> Two entrances and no signs
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/-37.99231/145.14903
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/118193819
>
> Then there are networks that are clearly signed indicating Transit
> traffic is forbidden. These are the only places I would use the
> access=destination tag.
>
> Have I got it right? Right enough to revert any tagging that does   
> not conform?
>
> Thanks Tony