On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:49 PM Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Consider a bridge which is structurally strong enough for pedestrians, > cyclists and maybe even horses but which would > > collapse if a vehicle drove over it. The distinction between "private" > and "no" for vehicles then becomes clear. Even the > > owner would not drive a vehicle over it. > > Is that not a highway=footway, cycleway, path, bridleway? OK then. Two parallel highways carrying cars. Linked by a bridge that is not suitable for cars. Preferably (to answer a point made by somebody else) with legal restrictions saying no cars can use the bridge. However contrived, there will be cases where the bridge itself does not permit access to motor vehicles even though the way leading up to it does. As in "no vehicles beyond this point." Now I think about it, I've recently seen a road, which turns into a track, which leads to a slipway. The track had a sign saying no access to vehicles because the track was in a poor state of repair. Admittedly, it was more to limit the council's legal liability than a flat out you-will-be-prosecuted prohibition, but it was part of a public way with no access to motor vehicles. Which I didn't map because the sign said the prohibition was temporary (it will be months before I go that way again, if ever). -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
