On 09.10.2015 23:42, ajt1...@gmail.com wrote: >>> localised meaning does not always have to be parsed into universal >>> tags. >>> >>> Here in the UK we have very specific access legislation for paths. On a >>> bridleway, for example, cycling is permitted, but cycle racing is forbidden, >>> and cannot be authorised (whereas it can be authorised on other rights of >>> way). Then we have "restricted byways". And "byways open to all traffic". >>> And "unclassified county roads". And so on. >> Sounds more like a road type issue than an access tags issue. > > It's not a road type issue. It's not especially uncommon to have a "legal > right of access" that legally allows vehicles that physically won't fit.
This discussion is about access tags, hence legal right of access. In this context, physical fit does not matter. >>> So we use the standard OSM broad-brush duck tagging (highway=track, >>> highway=footway, highway=cycleway etc.) and add a UK-specific value to >>> record the legal status of the path (designation=public_bridleway, >>> designation=restricted_byway, designation=byway_open_to_all_traffic etc.). >>> That way, it's easy to map, easy to parse in outline, possible to parse in >>> detail, and doesn't impose a burden on the 95% of non-UK mappers or the 99% >>> of data consumers who don't care. >> However, the data consumers who do care have a hard time. > > I do care (I create maps that incorporate these rights of way), and don't > have a hard time. Are you UK-based by any chance? Of course everyone incorporates the tags used by the own community. How do you handle designation=Državna_cesta? > "creating a proprietary tag" is effectively exactly what you're proposing > (the first line of the first message in this thread was "I intend to write a > proposal for a new access=* value, but I don't know a reasonable tag name."). This tag will not be proprietary. It will have a clearly defined meaning, it will be documented in the usal wiki pages, and everyone all over the world is free to use it. > You're entirely within your rights to use a new "access" value, and everyone > else (router developers included) is entirely within their rights (and very > likely) to ignore it. Application developers in countries where such roads exist will certainly support the tag right from the start, and others will follow when usage numbers increase. Anyway, I don't care whether the tag is supported. I don't do "mapping for routers". If they want to use it, that's fine. If they ignore it, that's fine too. Nobody is forced to use their software. > This does a worse job of communicating the access > rights to the intended audience than "access=destination with some sort of > caveat" would. A proposal (with certainly plenty of discussion) and the subsequent documentation at key:access will be sufficient communication. We don't need to visit every developer on Earth personally for every new tag. > There are routers out there that don't understand that bicycle access on > trunk roads is country dependant, or that it might be possible to route > _through_ gates on tracks; do you really think that they'll cope well with > an access value that they've never heard of? Yes, because the new value will neither be country-dependent (as bicycle on trunk) nor lockable (as a gate). I reckon that most applications will treat the new tag as a synonym for access=yes or no, just as they do for access=destination/delivery/agricultural/etc. But applications will elaborate over the years, and we don't want to remap all data when applications happen to be ready. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
