On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > On 17/01/2012 03:31, Anthony wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM, John Sturdy<jcg.stu...@gmail.com> 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 different from ownership.
> Not every bit of land owned by a government is public. I wasn't talking about every bit of land owned by a government. I'm talking about public rights of way with legal use restrictions. "No bicycles" is not bicycle=private, it's bicycle=no. Why is that? > OSM currently doesn't do anything with ownership AFAIK. The definition of *=private is "Only with permission of the owner on an individual basis". A military base, owned by the government, might very well fall under that description. Permission to enter is given out *on an individual basis*. A public right of way with a sign that says "no horses" or "no bicycles" or "buses only" does not. Permission is not given out *on an individual basis*. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
