Re: [Tagging] winter tyres

[Kevin Kenny]

>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_your_local_legislation.2C_if_not_bound_to_objects_in_reality
>> if there’s a sign “winter equipment required” it is bound to an object in 
>> reality.
> I'm not disputing that. I was commenting on Kevin Kenny's pointing out the
> "don't map your local legislation" rule in response to your question whether
> "we want to tag "winter equipment required" and this means
> different things in different jurisdictions, or if we set up a series of
> more atomic tags that spell out the implications of "winter equipment"."
>
> Bearing this rule in mind, it seems logical to only use
> "winter_equipment_required=yes" or "winter_equipment_required="
> (if the traffic signs specifies a time range), rather than tags for all the
> implications of winter equipment.

Exactly what I was trying to say. The sign reads, 'winter equipment required'
(or whatever). The local legislation defines what that is, and could be changed
by the legislature without needing to replace the sign. The sign exists
on the ground. It says what it says.

I can understand the argument that a navigation system might
conceivably want the definition in machine-readable form, but
eventually, we get to where we want a navigation system simply
to ask the driver, "the database says the road is restricted, do you
want to go there?" (as osmand does for private ways now). The old
paper road maps that used to be ubiquitous at gas stations usually
had some sort of symbol that represented "limited purpose or
seasonal road - inquire locally for conditions." We eventually
reach a point where "warn the driver and ask for confirmation"
would be the right answer even in OSM based systems.
It just isn't possible to encode all the conditions that the
human imagination keeps inventing.

Off topic: (feel free to stop reading here)

For that reason, there are a fair number of miles of wilderness trails
that I've entered, where I haven't troubled to try to invent tagging for
the local legislation, "snowshoes or skis required when snow depth
in treadway exceeds eight inches," even though that rule generally
appears in the long list of the rules at the trailhead.  It just felt too much
like "mapping the legislation" rather than "mapping the thing on the
ground."

Even further off topic: (this next bit I know is contentious)

That's why I've still not abandoned, "access=permit".
There are a lot of signs in my area that read, "access by permit
only", (where other signs from the same agencies say "entry
forbidden", or "public access allowed for the following purposes").
It's a thing that's visible on the sign. The details of the conditions
under which a permit is granted generally are NOT visible in
the field, although generally the signs have contact information.
I've been silent on that subject for a while just because I haven't
had time to Wikify a formal proposal. Too many other projects.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] winter tyres

[Warin]

On 01-Nov-17 01:18 AM, Michal Fabík wrote:

Hi,
from tomorrow on (until spring) some roads in Czechia (and other
countries, although the date may vary) will only be accessible to
vehicles with "winter equipment", i.e. the vehicle must be fitted with
snow or M+S tyres, plus it has to carry snow chains, tow rope and
possibly other related equipment, depending on jurisdiction.

I wanted to look up these roads but I didn't find any way of tagging
them in the wiki.

Taginfo search doesn't return much for "winter" or "tyre" either, so how about

winter_equipment=yes

or maybe

winter_equipment=


Is it a 'conditional restriction' ?

possibly something like 'motor_vehicle:conditional=winter_equipment@ winter'   
? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] winter tyres

[Paul Johnson]

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 1:19 PM, Michal Fabík 
wrote:

> On 31.10.2017 18:37, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> On 31. Oct 2017, at 16:31, Michal Fabík  wrote:
>>>
>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map
>>> _your_local_legislation.2C_if_not_bound_to_objects_in_reality
>>>
>>
>>
>> if there’s a sign “winter equipment required” it is bound to an object in
>> reality.
>>
>
> I'm not disputing that. I was commenting on Kevin Kenny's pointing out the
> "don't map your local legislation" rule in response to your question
> whether "we want to tag "winter equipment required" and this means
> different things in different jurisdictions, or if we set up a series of
> more atomic tags that spell out the implications of "winter equipment"."
>
> Bearing this rule in mind, it seems logical to only use
> "winter_equipment_required=yes" or "winter_equipment_required="
> (if the traffic signs specifies a time range), rather than tags for all the
> implications of winter equipment.
>

Perhaps something like...

access:conditional=no @ whenever
access:winter_equipped=yes @ whenever
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] winter tyres

[Michal Fabík]

On 31.10.2017 18:37, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:



sent from a phone


On 31. Oct 2017, at 16:31, Michal Fabík  wrote:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_your_local_legislation.2C_if_not_bound_to_objects_in_reality



if there’s a sign “winter equipment required” it is bound to an object in 
reality.


I'm not disputing that. I was commenting on Kevin Kenny's pointing out 
the "don't map your local legislation" rule in response to your question 
whether "we want to tag "winter equipment required" and this means

different things in different jurisdictions, or if we set up a series of
more atomic tags that spell out the implications of "winter equipment"."

Bearing this rule in mind, it seems logical to only use 
"winter_equipment_required=yes" or 
"winter_equipment_required=" (if the traffic signs specifies 
a time range), rather than tags for all the implications of winter 
equipment.


Regards,

--
Michal Fabík

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] confusing wiki on emergency

[Mark Wagner]

On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 10:44:09 +
Adam Snape  wrote:

> 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?

There may not be legal prohibitions, but there certainly are physical
ones.  A jersey barrier doesn't care if you're driving an ambulance.

There are also situations where it's helpful to make it explicit that
emergency vehicles have access.  For example, local motorways have
crossover roads connecting the two sides that are designated for use by
emergency vehicles only.  It's useful to have a way of expressing that.

-- 
Mark

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] winter tyres

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 31. Oct 2017, at 16:31, Michal Fabík  wrote:
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_your_local_legislation.2C_if_not_bound_to_objects_in_reality


if there’s a sign “winter equipment required” it is bound to an object in 
reality.

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] winter tyres

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Tod Fitch  wrote:
> So basically the spelling in the UK was ‘tire’ for a couple hundred years
> and they decided to change it in the case of rubber tires. If OpenStreetMap
> had started in 1900, we would use ’tire’ rather than ’tyre’. :)


I seem to recall that 'tyre' was adopted as British engineering usage
to avoid confusion with other senses of the word, 'tire,' similar to the
way that one of the engineering societies decreed that henceforth
'fuze' was to be used for the explosive initiator, while 'fuse' was to
be used for the electrical safety device.

In any case, I don't think that there's any real controversy that 'tyre'
is commonly accepted en_UK spelling.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] winter tyres

[Tod Fitch]

> On Oct 31, 2017, at 7:50 AM, Micah Cochran  wrote:
> 
> 
> Please check your spelling of tire. 
> 
> tyre is the correct British English spelling.
> 
> A tire (American English) or tyre (British English[...]) is a ring-shaped 
> component that surrounds a wheel's rim to transfer a vehicle's load from the 
> axle through the wheel to the ground and to provide traction on the surface 
> traveled over.
> 
> From the Wikipedia article on "Tire".  Thanks Wikipeida!
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire 
>  

Excerpt from my old microprint edition of the Oxford English Dictionary under 
the word “tire”:

> Probably the same word as prec., the tire being originally (sense 1) the 
> ‘attire’, ‘clothing’, or ‘accoutrement’ of the wheel. From 15th to 17th c. 
> spelt (like prec.) tire and tyre indifferently. Before 1700 tyre became 
> generally obsolete and tire remained as regular form, as it still does in 
> America; but in Great Britain tyre has been recently revived as the popular 
> term for the rubber rim of bicycle, tricycle, carriage, or motor-car wheels, 
> and is sometimes used for the steel tires of locomotive wheels.


So basically the spelling in the UK was ‘tire’ for a couple hundred years and 
they decided to change it in the case of rubber tires. If OpenStreetMap had 
started in 1900, we would use ’tire’ rather than ’tyre’. :)


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] winter tyres

[Michal Fabík]

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Kevin Kenny
 wrote:

> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_your_local_legislation.2C_if_not_bound_to_objects_in_reality

Thanks for pointing this out, I wasn't even quite aware of this. When
I suggested winter_equipment=yes and winter_equipment=, I
was thinking of the latter way as optional, to indicate the
country-wide time range. Thinking about it now, with the "don't map
your local legislation" in mind, I think I remember seeing traffic
signs that actually indicated the time range (I'm not sure in what
country it was though - can somebody confirm?). This second option
would then make sense for cases like that.

Regards,

-- 
Michal Fabík

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] winter tyres

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> The question is if we want to tag "winter equipment required" and this means
> different things in different jurisdictions, or if we set up a series of
> more atomic tags that spell out the implications of "winter equipment".


We want to tag what the sign says. Or is "Don't map your local legislation,
if not bound to objects in reality," no longer considered best practice?

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_your_local_legislation.2C_if_not_bound_to_objects_in_reality

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] winter tyres

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2017-10-31 15:39 GMT+01:00 Pander :

> On 10/31/2017 03:18 PM, Michal Fabík wrote:
> . Note that winter equipment might also cover snow chains
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_chains which is at some times
> compulsory on certain roads in winter. So a more detailed classification
> might be needed.




The question is if we want to tag "winter equipment required" and this
means different things in different jurisdictions, or if we set up a series
of more atomic tags that spell out the implications of "winter equipment".

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] winter tyres

[Micah Cochran]

>
>
>> Please check your spelling of tire.


tyre is the correct British English spelling.

A tire (American English) or tyre (British English[...]) is a ring-shaped
component that surrounds a wheel's rim to transfer a vehicle's load from
the axle through the wheel to the ground and to provide traction on the
surface traveled over.

>From the Wikipedia article on "Tire".  Thanks Wikipeida!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire


Micah Cochran
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] winter tyres

[Philip Barnes]

The original spelling is correct, OSM uses British English. Tire is American 
spelling.

Phil (trigpoint) 


On 31 October 2017 14:39:47 GMT+00:00, Pander  
wrote:
>On 10/31/2017 03:18 PM, Michal Fabík wrote:
>> Hi,
>> from tomorrow on (until spring) some roads in Czechia (and other
>> countries, although the date may vary) will only be accessible to
>> vehicles with "winter equipment", i.e. the vehicle must be fitted
>with
>> snow or M+S tyres, plus it has to carry snow chains, tow rope and
>> possibly other related equipment, depending on jurisdiction.
>>
>> I wanted to look up these roads but I didn't find any way of tagging
>> them in the wiki.
>>
>> Taginfo search doesn't return much for "winter" or "tyre" either, so
>how about
>>
>> winter_equipment=yes
>>
>> or maybe
>>
>> winter_equipment=
>Please check your spelling of tire. Note that winter equipment might 
>also cover snow chains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_chains which 
>is at some times compulsory on certain roads in winter. So a more 
>detailed classification might be needed.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] winter tyres

[Michal Fabík]

Hi,
from tomorrow on (until spring) some roads in Czechia (and other
countries, although the date may vary) will only be accessible to
vehicles with "winter equipment", i.e. the vehicle must be fitted with
snow or M+S tyres, plus it has to carry snow chains, tow rope and
possibly other related equipment, depending on jurisdiction.

I wanted to look up these roads but I didn't find any way of tagging
them in the wiki.

Taginfo search doesn't return much for "winter" or "tyre" either, so how about

winter_equipment=yes

or maybe

winter_equipment=

?

Regards,

-- 
Michal Fabík

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] confusing wiki on emergency

[joost schouppe]

Hi Adam,

This thread came into existance after questions to use from people actually
working with the emergency services to improve routing for them. There is a
real issue to solve. Basically, emergency services can often ignore many
laws of traffic, but there are some exceptions. Especially in the case of
barriers there is a lot of room for confusion. They might be an actual
unmovable physical barrier, or something that certain services can operate.

2017-10-31 11:44 GMT+01:00 Adam Snape :

> 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 
> 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 :
>>
>>> *separate section for meaning
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31 Oct 2017 8:24 a.m., "Mateusz Konieczny" 
>>> 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" 
>>> 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  |
 Twitter  | LinkedIn
  | Meetup
 

 ___
 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  |
>> Twitter  | LinkedIn
>>  | Meetup
>> 
>>
>> ___
>> 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  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] confusing wiki on emergency

[Adam Snape]

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 
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 :
>
>> *separate section for meaning
>>
>>
>> On 31 Oct 2017 8:24 a.m., "Mateusz Konieczny" 
>> 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" 
>> 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  |
>>> Twitter  | LinkedIn
>>>  | Meetup
>>> 
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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  |
> Twitter  | LinkedIn
>  | Meetup
> 
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] confusing wiki on emergency

[joost schouppe]

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 :

> *separate section for meaning
>
>
> On 31 Oct 2017 8:24 a.m., "Mateusz Konieczny" 
> 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" 
> 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  |
>> Twitter  | LinkedIn
>>  | Meetup
>> 
>>
>> ___
>> 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  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] confusing wiki on emergency

[Mateusz Konieczny]

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" 
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  |
> Twitter  | LinkedIn
>  | Meetup
> 
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging