[Talk-GB] Gates (was: Private roads...)

[charlie at cferrero.net]

Gregory (nomoregrapes at googlemail.com) wrote:

> Some stats on usage as of Aug 2009:
> 151 status=locked
> 106 status=open
> 49 status=closed
> 21 locked=yes
> 16 locked=no
> 11 closed=yes
> 4 open=yes
> 2 open=no
> 2 gate:locked=no
> 2 gate_lock=yes (possibly the waterways lock meaning)
> single uses of locked=true, locked=overnight, status=closed?,
> status=unlocked
> source: searching
> http://osmdoc.com<http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/status/#values> for
> tags I could think of.
>
>
> Personally I would propose the following be added to the barrier:gate wiki
> page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dgate)
> status=open
> status=unlocked (to mean closed but unlocked)
> status= locked (implies closed)
>
> * This doesn't cover if it is fixed open (e.g. rusted or excessive plant
> growth holding it back).
> * We could make it gate:status=..., but I don't see that status would clash
> or cause confusion with other tagging of the node.
> * It could possibly be further extended by status:day=* and status:night=*
> for those normally changed based roughly on daylight, otherwise the more
> complicated opening_hours proposal could be used.
>
> Who supports the this tagging, or suggests amendments?
> I suppose it should be cross-posted to the tagging list, is somebody on that
> list and can forward it please?
> I'll also edit the wiki Talk page
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:barrier%3Dgate
>
I support this.  I used the locked status to adjust the labelling of  
the gate when I compile the maps for my GPS, as it's really useful to  
know in advance if a locked gate is blocking a path.  At the moment my  
style rules have to match all sorts of different tag/key combinations,  
so a unified approach would be great.

I personally prefer locked=yes to status=locked, but could happily  
live with either variant so long as it is applied consistently.


-- 
Charlie