On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 08:12:36AM +0100, Adam Snape wrote:
> As bicycles are vehicles (and not all other vehicles are motorised) that
> can be tagged as vehicle=no hgv=yes. Given that the exclusion likely
> includes more than just vehicles (eg. horses) , access=no foot=yes hgv=yes
> is maybe a bet
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 07:00:15AM +0100, David Woolley wrote:
> On 29/03/17 21:32, ael wrote:
> > and, for good measure, hgv=permissive.
>
> Permissive sounds wrong to me. Permissive basically reflects the rights of
> the land owner, and for users is the same as yes.
Well, yes, but looking down
As bicycles are vehicles (and not all other vehicles are motorised) that
can be tagged as vehicle=no hgv=yes. Given that the exclusion likely
includes more than just vehicles (eg. horses) , access=no foot=yes hgv=yes
is maybe a better option.
Adam
On 30 Mar 2017 7:29 a.m., "Warin" <61sundow...@gm
On 30-Mar-17 05:00 PM, David Woolley wrote:
On 29/03/17 21:32, ael wrote:
and, for good measure, hgv=permissive.
Permissive sounds wrong to me. Permissive basically reflects the
rights of the land owner, and for users is the same as yes.
___
A
On 29/03/17 21:32, ael wrote:
and, for good measure, hgv=permissive.
Permissive sounds wrong to me. Permissive basically reflects the rights
of the land owner, and for users is the same as yes.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
ht
I have just tagged a layby provided for abnormal loads (on the approach
to a toll bridge) with
highway=rest_area
rest_area=abnormal_load
and, for good measure, hgv=permissive.
But I am not sure that conveys that only "abnormal loads" may park
there. And a data consumer that has no knowledge of my
6 matches
Mail list logo
