Feb 28, 2019, 1:54 PM by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > Am Do., 28. Feb. 2019 um 13:26 Uhr schrieb Fernando Trebien <> > fernando.treb...@gmail.com <mailto:fernando.treb...@gmail.com>> >: > >> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:58 PM Mateusz Konieczny >> <>> matkoni...@tutanota.com <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>> > wrote: >> >> Feb 27, 2019, 7:31 PM by >> ba...@ursamundi.org >> <mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org>>> : >> >> motor_vehicle=no would exclude most emergency vehicles. >> > No, it would not. motor_vehicle=no is a legal limitation. >> >> Currently, it actually would because emergency=* is nested under >> motor_vehicle=* in the access tags hierarchy. [1] So to express that >> motor vehicles (cars, trucks, etc.) are forbidden but emergency >> vehicles are not, both motor_vehicle=no + emergency=yes are required. >> > > > it depends on the specific implementation. Yes, there is an "emergency" key, > but it is not clear how people will interpret the absence of such tag. If you > assume that emergency vehicles in emergency service are not bound by legal > restrictions in general (not too far fetched IMHO), it implies emergency is > always "yes" unless tagged otherwise. > I would treat emergency=yes as indicator that this route is free from pchysical obstacles. And many of them are explicitly signed and should be rather emergency=designated.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
