I agree that maxwidth=any_number should be interpreted as general restriction without discrimination. Generally I'd like to see a clearly distinctive tagging of legal (am I allowed to) vs. physical (will I not get stuck) aspects, but that is much broader issue than maxwidth. maxwidth might actually one of the legal limitations that are least arbitrary and most often supported by (bridge) hard reality.
Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) 2012/2/26 Mike Valiant <mike_vali...@hotmail.com>: > >> Originally there was little mention of any of them tags depicting >> purely legal restrictions. Even access/*=no was "unsuitable or not >> allowed", but later, as it was deemed unverifiable, the "only legal" >> started creeping into all sorts of tags, where it may or may not be >> the common usage, or sensible. > > I think previous discussions have largely been about roads which may be the > only case where there is a legal restrictions apply. > > In the case under discussion, a gate across a *path*, I think it > is unlikely that there will ever be a case where the width restriction is > anything but physical. maxwidth:physical as a qualification would be an > unnecessary > > It's not clear whether contributors tagging roads have been > differentiating between warning signs (triangular) and prohibitory legal > signs (circular). Taginfo suggests not: > > There are 4147 instances of maxwidth > 0 instances of maxwidth:physical > 0 instances of maxwidth:legal > > In my experience the legal restriction is much rarer than the warning signs > and physical restrictions. > > IMHO maxwidth should cover *any* restriction. I shall continue to tag with > the majority! > > //Mike > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
