On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:37 PM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > If there are people who can access, you should prefer “private” over no. > > IMHO we should remove “for the general public” in the above definition. Where > did you find this sentence?
This is where I continue to be confused. Presumably the land owner can always access, which has made the distinction between 'private' and 'no' unclear to me. By your definition, the only justification for 'no' would be that a way is impassable, in which case, why isn't it abandoned:highway=whatever, rather than highway=whatever access=no? On the other hand, 'no' meaning 'landowner and designees only', while 'private' means 'some third parties may access, but no permission routinely granted to the general public' would make eminent sense. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
