On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 10:43 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is where I continue to be confused. > I am confused by many things, these days. But not by this. > > Presumably the land owner can always access, which has made the > distinction between 'private' and 'no' unclear to me. By your > definition, the only justification for 'no' would be that a way is > impassable, in which case, why isn't it abandoned:highway=whatever, > rather than highway=whatever access=no? > Consider a bridge which is structurally strong enough for pedestrians, cyclists and maybe even horses but which would collapse if a vehicle drove over it. The distinction between "private" and "no" for vehicles then becomes clear. Even the owner would not drive a vehicle over it. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
