On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 07:05:52PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:52:17 +0200 > Anders Fougner <anders.foug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Den 28.08.15 16.56, skrev Mateusz Konieczny: > > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:15:56 +0200 > > > Anders Fougner <anders.foug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which > > >> isn't misunderstood so easily. > > >> The use of access:foot=*, access:bicycle=* has been proposed at > > >> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_restrictions_1.5#Namespace> > > >> but just not taken into use. It looks good, though...and wouldn't > > >> be so easily misunderstood, I believe. > > > Why it would not be "so easily misunderstood"? > > Well, I think it could be just because people intuitively think that > > highway=path, bicycle=no means it's a trail not _suitable_ or > > comfortable with a bike. The word access is simply not there, and > > then they don't even think about that as a possibility. And, people > > not into mountain biking might believe that trails are not usable or > > accessible with bikes unless they are paved or otherwise designed for > > biking. > > Adding access: will not improve anything as it is still not indicating > that it is about legal access. legal_access:bicycle=* would at least > give chance that it will be more easily understood (not that it would > be a good idea). >
that would be one idea. Or accept the fact that people mess it up and subclass access into * access:legal, * access:suitable Just wondered - when did anyone here last see a wheelchair=no road sign? Is any of these 214658 tags correct? http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/?key=wheelchair&value=no Richard _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
