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 <tangarar...@gmail.com>: > > > On 16/01/2012, at 6:45, LM_1 <flukas.robot+...@gmail.com> 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=yes meaning >> nothing except foot - it is easier than excluding each use >> individually. >> access=no alone is really not usable. Maybe for paths in places of >> nuclear explosions. >> LM_1 > > But is (access=no and foot=yes) the same as just foot=yes? > > My thinking is they are different. foot=yes in isolation leaves open the > possibility of other access methods open, whereas if used in conjunction with > access=no, it is confirmed as strictly foot only. > > As for nuclear explosions... it's dangerous, but you still can go there. > You'd be highly advised to take special equipment! > > access=no alone would be useful for a wildlife reserve where absolutely no > humans are ever allowed under any circumstances, but I know of no such place! > > BJ > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
