2012/6/1 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > When a UK sign says "unsuitable for motor vehicles" or "unsuitable for HGVs" > it means "discouraged" in your terms. There is no guarantee that you *will* > get into problems, but it is just a strong warning. A road that becomes a > muddy track might present a problem for a normal car, but a trial bike or a > tractor would be fine. The warning is probably not enforceable, i.e. if you > ignore it you couldn't get a ticket for that fact alone; luckily for many > drivers it's not illegal to be an idiot. > > So if the word "unsuitable" has the above semantics in normal use, it would > make sense to me to call it "unsuitable" in the tagging instead of > "discouraged" and using "unsuitable" to mean something else. > > How about "unsuitable" (i.e. preferably not) and "impassable" (i.e. don't > even think about it)?
So what you mean is: * unsuitable: allowed: yes, possible: may be not * impassable: allowed: yes, possible: most certainly not Correct? When I read this, I have to admit: this doesn't sound like something that belongs into an access tag any more to me. When you wrote "impassable" I immediately thought about the smoothness-key, which "provides a classification scheme regarding the physical usability of a way for wheeled vehicles. " Despite the name "smoothness" it might fit the purpose if combined with the vehicle type, e.g. smoothness:hgv=impassable . But I'm not really convinced of it myself. Or maybe another key like e.g. passable? Extendible with a vehicle type and with (more or less) the same values as smoothness. So "unsuitable" would translate to passable:<vehicle>=bad and "impassable" to passable:<vehicle>=impassable. Martin * passable:<vehicle>= _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging