[Talk-GB] foot=permissive in 'paid for' attractions?

[Nick Whitelegg]

Thanks for this. (Apologies for top-posting, it's something that proprietary mail clients seem to insist upon unfortunately...) - foot=customers sounds good.
________________________________________
From: David Woolley <forums at david-woolley.me.uk>
Sent: 22 May 2016 15:04:15
To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] foot=permissive in 'paid for' attractions?

On 22/05/16 14:55, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>
> Just noticed two local 'paid-for' attractions, namely Hillier Gardens
> and Mottisfont, both just outside Romsey, have had their paths tagged
> for foot=permissive which seems somewhat misleading given that an
> admission charge is required.
>
>
> My thoughts are to remove the foot=permissive tags from the paths in
> both these attractions but won't do so if this is going against current
> tagging practice.
>

I would think that the path should be tagged foot=customers not
untagged, although a general access tag might be OK.  Also, if the whole
park is mapped as an area with restricted access, that is probably
implied onto the paths.

On the other hand, access=yes is OK for toll roads.

I definitely think that access=permissive is wrong (although most paths
in public parks should be so tagged, which is probably the source of the
problem).

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb