[Talk-us] Marking closed bridges

[Zeke Farwell]

It seems to me that access is forbidden to a private road because the
landowner says so.  It is not a public right of way, and it will remain so
for the foreseeable future.  If a bridge that normally would be a public
right of way is closed, I would like to see that rendered differently on a
map from a private road.  On a low level the information is the same:  you
can't use this way.  But this leaves unanswered questions:  Is the way
completely unused and unmaintained, or is access just forbidden to the
public?  Is access forbidden indefinitely or will it be allowed again in the
future?  As a map user, I'd like to be able to easily find the answers to
these questions.

I think access=no make sense for any closed road/bridge, but I'd like some
supporting tags to supply the rest of the information.  The access page on
the wiki <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access> mentions some time
restriction tags (date_on, date_off, time_on, time_off).  These could work
for seasonal or temporary closures but I'm not too sure how to use them.

On another note, I don't like rendering of the
access=no/private<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=44.50376&lon=-73.16416&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF>tag.
 I think the red highlighting stands out way too much.  Private/closed
roads should stand out less than their open counterparts in my opinion.
highway=construction<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.9021&lon=-73.1967&zoom=14&layers=B000FTF>,
and rail=abandoned/disused<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=44.81774&lon=-73.09425&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF>are
both less obvious on the sippy map than in use rail and highways.  Am
I
alone here, or do other people agree?

I probably should move this conversation to the tagging list at this point.
 Is it just tagging at openstreetmap.org?


Zeke




On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:

> 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/20091204/55ab79b5/attachment.html>