> Originally there was little mention of any of them tags depicting
> purely legal restrictions. Even access/*=no was "unsuitable or not
> allowed", but later, as it was deemed unverifiable, the "only legal"
> started creeping into all sorts of tags, where it may or may not be
> the common usage, or sensible.
I think previous discussions have largely been about roads which may be the
only case where there is a legal restrictions apply.
In the case under discussion, a gate across a *path*, I think it is unlikely
that there will ever be a case where the width restriction is anything but
physical. maxwidth:physical as a qualification would be an unnecessary
It's not clear whether contributors tagging roads have been differentiating
between warning signs (triangular) and prohibitory legal signs (circular).
Taginfo suggests not:
There are 4147 instances of maxwidth0 instances of maxwidth:physical0 instances
of maxwidth:legal
In my experience the legal restriction is much rarer than the warning signs and
physical restrictions.
IMHO maxwidth should cover *any* restriction. I shall continue to tag with the
majority!
//Mike
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
