[OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers

[Nic Roets]

On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
> It's probably just as well the wiki documents, not defines. And given the
> vast preponderance of highway=gate nodes within (say) highway=footway ways,
> the wiki docs look pretty unambiguously wrong.

So to obtain a definition of barrier=gate, you want me to do the
following: Look at a region where barrier=gate has frequently been
used without access tag. Let's say somewhere in the UK (a country I
have never visited). Then conclude that a default of access=yes or
foot=yes makes the most sense, because it will allow routing along
some footways.

Except there are places where the placements of the gates (the
topology) would lead an intelligent person to conclude that the
default access value for gates should be "no". For example when there
are many ways with gates into an area and one way without a gate:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/308935502

Then there is the possibility that a footway or gate have not been
mapped. So I will have to look at many, many gates and have an
outstanding intelligence to obtain the "correct" definition.

I'd much rather just look at the wiki.