concluded there are areas where behavior guidelines (see links below) introduce paths not for general public but for climbers. (Tom thanks for the links)
therefore we definitely should use: access=destination This single tag might be sufficient. And an other tag would just simplify rendering... Anyway - what are your thoughts about path=climbing_access (about 391 occurrences according to taginfo) it might be used to show a main usage of a path Karsten On 08.08.2014 13:38, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > Tobias Knerr wrote, on 2014-08-08 12:55:> > > access=destination makes sense. That second tag isn't established, > > though, nor is the concept of "explaining the details" through a > > destination=* subtag. > > Martin Koppenhoefer wrote, on 2014-08-08 13:01:> >> >> If there are legally binding signs, yes, if the legal significance of >> the signs is > > something like:"it would be kind if you won't use this path, because > it is narrow > > The legality would come from the code of conduct in the National Park > not to leave > the marked paths, thus no need for physical signs, > > [3] > http://www.nationalpark-saechsische-schweiz.de/besucherinformation/verhalten/ > > however there might be unambiguous signs as well: > > [2] > http://www.nationalpark-saechsische-schweiz.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/13-Verhalten.jpg > > Tom > (just learned the difference between the green and the black triangle) > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
