There was some mention in this thread of the some lack of utility of
"access=no" as a tag-value pair as someone usually has access to somewhere, it
is just impeded by rules or physical barriers; I do agree with this in general.
If we move to the inclusion of a historical layer, then "access=no"
2012/1/16 :
> There was some mention in this thread of the some lack of utility of
> "access=no" as a tag-value pair as someone usually has access to somewhere,
> it is just impeded by rules or physical barriers; I do agree with this in
> general. If we move to the inclusion of a historical la
I understand "access=no" as meaning no *public* access, but perhaps
that is better covered by "access=private".
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Currently the documented values for "bridge" don't seem to follow any
(single) classification system.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge
Fortunately 98.49% of all actually used values don't have this problem
(they are "yes"), but the rest seems a mess:
1. There is a first classificatio
I agree that what you describe is bad. I agree that your first point
can be inferred from what is on the bridge (sometimes there can be
more).
After a short research:
All values that you mention in 2 (together with bascule) are structure types .
Number 3 (without bascule) is mode of operation for m
Hi Martin,
Your proposal makes a lot of sense.
bridge:structure (or type) seems the logical place to put it, along with
bridge:name, bridge:clearance (or whatever min/max clearance tags we have for
tidal situations), etc...
The principal should also be extended to tunnels.
eg tunnel:structu
>
> The principal should also be extended to tunnels.
>
> eg tunnel:structure, using values like - "excavated" (shallow cut and
> cover tunnels), "bored" (deeper tunnels), and "covered" (ground-level
> tunnels enclosed by a building/structure).
>
I don't think this withion the scope of general OS
> 1. There is a first classification system using the kind of way going
> over it for distinction:
>
which is inherent in the way or other structure that is tagged with
"bridge": highway, railway, waterway, pipeline
>
> 1.1 A road (or railway): "viaduct" (a term that is not really well
> defined,
On 16/01/2012, at 6:45, LM_1 wrote:
>> Given that absolutely everything on the planet is accessible by at least
>> someone with the right authority, permission, ownership, special equipment,
>> etc. is there ever a need for access=no ?
>
> As a default in combination with eg. access=no, foot
That is what I am saying - access=no is useful as a generic value to
make exceptions (like foot=yes) from.
LM_1
2012/1/16 Ben Johnson :
>
>
> On 16/01/2012, at 6:45, LM_1 wrote:
>
>>> Given that absolutely everything on the planet is accessible by at least
>>> someone with the right authority, p
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM, John Sturdy wrote:
> I understand "access=no" as meaning no *public* access, but perhaps
> that is better covered by "access=private".
access=private doesn't make much sense on land that is publicly owned.
access=no is often, and perhaps most usefully, used along
On 17/01/2012 03:31, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM, John Sturdy wrote:
I understand "access=no" as meaning no *public* access, but perhaps
that is better covered by "access=private".
access=private doesn't make much sense on land that is publicly owned.
Right of access is dif
12 matches
Mail list logo
