Might access tags for emergency service personnel be a solution for a non-existant problem? Are there really many places which the emergency services are explicitly legally prohibited from accessing?
Adam On 31 October 2017 at 09:00, joost schouppe <joost.schou...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Mateusz, > > Of course a single bad link is not enough. I also didn't realize how many > objects are already tagged with emergency=yes. > > I've never liked the way access is implied on all the specific tags, where > we write access:bicycle as bicycle. IMHO, it makes the tagging scheme more > complicated to understand for a new mapper. > Since emergency can be used in two different ways, it makes it harder to > get an idea of what values are used in the access sence and which in the > amenity sense. Theoretically, you could have a road which has both some > sensible emergency-amenity AND emergency-access. I haven't seen many of > those though, e.g. I guess you could consider a road also tagged as an > ambulance_station or a coastal_defence as simple mistakes. > > Looking at the values used in the context of emergency, I do think there's > need for some decent documentation. The general access values don't mention > things like ambulance, fire_fighters, fire_truck etc.). In the spirit of > other access tags, I suppose these should rather be ambulance=yes instead > of emergency=ambulance. > > 2017-10-31 9:26 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@gmail.com>: > >> *separate section for meaning >> >> >> On 31 Oct 2017 8:24 a.m., "Mateusz Konieczny" <matkoni...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Single bad link on wiki is not a good reason for mass edit worldwide, >> changing all editors, changing all data consumers, changing habits of all >> users using this tag, introducing confusing and unusual prefix (it is not >> like OSM tagging scheme requires more confusing things) and changing all >> pages on wiki describing this tag. >> >> Just fix the bad link, separate section four meaning as an access tag >> makes sense. >> >> On 30 Oct 2017 11:08 a.m., "joost schouppe" <joost.schou...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On the access page, there is a described use for emergency=* . However, >>> when you click through, you get to a page to a tag that describes all sorts >>> of amenities related to emergency. >>> >>> Would this be a reason to retag emergency when related to access as the >>> implied tag access:emergency=*, and then make a new wiki page about >>> access:emergency ? Or would it be enough to add a section to the >>> emergency=* wiki page to explain that it can ALSO be used as an implied >>> access:emergency tag? >>> >>> -- >>> Joost Schouppe >>> OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | >>> Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn >>> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup >>> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> > > > -- > Joost Schouppe > OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | > Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup > <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/> > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
