On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:07 AM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > > Yep. Fortunately, there aren't too many ways which use both highway=* > and > > barrier=*. > > Yeah...but still. I'm not a fan of having "bicycle=no" mean two > similar, but distinctly different things, when applied to different > kinds of objects. There's no way everyone's going to remember those > subtleties, and the different meanings will leak from one to the > other. Technically, this approach possible. Pragmatically and > socially, it seems unwise. > > And besides, it's just as likely that we'd want to tag the legalities > of a barrier, as the practicalities. And then how would we do *that*? > Hmm, thinking about it I'm not so sure we aren't mapping the legalities, at least not in situations where it makes sense to ask the question of whether or not crossing a barrier is legal. The purpose of a barrier, at least a barrier in a public way, is to make the illegal impractical. > (I think. Maybe it only makes sense to tag the legalities of the > things on either side: the park is vehicle=no, the path leading to it > is vehicle=yes, maybe the barrier doesn't need a legal status > marking.) > There are quite a lot of barriers which are vehicle=yes on both sides, but vehicle=no for the barrier. Both legally and practically.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
