[Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Anthony]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Zeke Farwell <ezekielf at gmail.com> wrote:

> In this case, I'd say the renderer is right.  Both access=private and
>> access=no mean essentially the same thing - you aren't allowed there without
>> explicit approval.  In the case of access=no, that approval happens to come
>> from a government agency, but I see no reason that needs to be drawn
>> differently.
>
>
> I disagree, perhaps access=private and access=no do mean the same thing,
> but in that case access=no is not a good option for a closed bridge.
>

Well, I didn't say they mean exactly the same thing, just essentially the
same thing, within the context of a map.

There are two distinct situations:
>
>    1. A road/bridge is private and access is only allowed for specified
>    users.  Condition of the road is fine, so even if you are not allowed, you
>    could choose to break the rules and use the road/bridge as long as there is
>    no gate.
>    2. A road/bridge is closed because it is unsafe, under construction, or
>    impassible.  Even if you are granted access, it would not be desirable to
>    use said road/bridge.
>
>
Road condition is separate from access=*.  Safety is separate from
access=*.  In any case, access=closed tells us none of this.  There are
perfectly safe roads which are in perfect condition, but which are closed.


> It's been decided that access=private definitely indicates sitation 1.
>  Situation 2 does not have a definite tagging scheme. Except for under
> construction.
>

Sure it does.  There's smoothness=impassible, which arguably could also be
used for unsafe.  If you don't like using smoothness=impassible to indicate
an unsafe bridge, come up with some sort of safety=unsafe tag (not sure how
verifiable it'll be, though).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/attachments/20091204/04ec6782/attachment.html>