On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 17:52:17 +0200 Anders Fougner <anders.foug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Den 28.08.15 16.56, skrev Mateusz Konieczny: > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:15:56 +0200 > > Anders Fougner <anders.foug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> So we should consider replacing the tagging scheme with one which > >> isn't misunderstood so easily. > >> The use of access:foot=*, access:bicycle=* has been proposed at > >> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/access_restrictions_1.5#Namespace> > >> but just not taken into use. It looks good, though...and wouldn't > >> be so easily misunderstood, I believe. > > Why it would not be "so easily misunderstood"? > Well, I think it could be just because people intuitively think that > highway=path, bicycle=no means it's a trail not _suitable_ or > comfortable with a bike. The word access is simply not there, and > then they don't even think about that as a possibility. And, people > not into mountain biking might believe that trails are not usable or > accessible with bikes unless they are paved or otherwise designed for > biking. Adding access: will not improve anything as it is still not indicating that it is about legal access. legal_access:bicycle=* would at least give chance that it will be more easily understood (not that it would be a good idea). > Can you find a better solution? I already mentioned improving editors. For example iD - is it clearly indicating that it is about legal status? I am also regularly checking situation in my region and fixing new problem. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
