On 02/26/2012 09:16 AM, Mike Valiant wrote:
> 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. 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
I'm not entirely sure about that. I personally have been tagging ATV trails (50 inch legal width restriction) as highway=track and adding a few other tags. But when I first started tagging them I used highway=path instead. Reading the description for highway=path it's not really clear that it doesn't apply. The description explicitly mentions snowmobiles which share a number of common trails with ATVs. I wouldn't be hard to convince me to go back to "path".
It's the default of no motor vehicles that made me switch over to track instead of path. But it's such a specialized use case.. it's just questionable.
Shawn _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
