2014-08-08 10:21 GMT+01:00 k4r573n <k4r5...@googlemail.com>: > On 07.08.2014 12:05, Tom Pfeifer wrote: >> If I understand Karsten correctly, the limitation is not about payment, >> it is to limit the number of people using this path. This would be >> typical for climbing crags in >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conservation >> areas. >> >> A typical example is the sandstone climbing in Saxonia/Germany, which >> is in >> a national park that even has a core zone. >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1595534 >> >> The agreement between the protectionists and the climbing associations >> is that only people "destined" to climb should leave the hiking paths >> marked for the general public and use those narrow access paths. >> >> Thus it would be possible to tag >> access=destination >> which could then be specified with >> destination=climbing > > Tom - yes you understood me right :) > There is no one who check whether your a climber or not or want to have > a fee - but these path are not aimed to be used by the general public. > > I admit that access=customers doesn't fit here so > summed up we have these approaches: > access=destination > destination=climbing > > or > access=climbers > > or > access=no > climbing=yes > > I'm ok with each of them but which one should be documented in the wiki
I'd vote for the first one (destination). I'm not keen on the third one since climbing=* would need to become widely recognised as an access tag, which doesn't feel very scaleable. Best Dan _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
