On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > > 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. > > You're essentially saying that legality and practicality are usually > aligned, in practice. But of course, an example like a kerb is a > barrier that is impractical to ride over, but not illegal. Maybe that's why barrier=kerb isn't in the wiki. > Or barriers > could be erected by bodies that don't have the right to impose laws or > bylaws. > Only on private land, which is what I meant about yes=permissive/no=private, and the fact that technically, bicycle=yes is incorrect on private land and it should be bicycle=permissive, but realistically, I don't think mappers make much distinction between yes and permissive, or between no and private.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
