On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 5:49 PM Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
Is that not a highway=footway, cycleway, path, bridleway? In any of those cases, it would be assumed to be motor_vehicle=no. If it was once a road bridge, it could also be abandoned:highway=unclassified or whatever. That's how I mapped https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14919563634 - highway=path foot=yes horse=yes ski=yes bicycle=no snowmobile=no abandoned:highway=track bridge=yes surface=wood And by contrast, https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14920137133 is demolished:highway=track while the rubble at the right side of the image is demolished:man_made=dam highway=path ford=yes et cetera. Except that I didn't map it, because I didn't attempt the crossing. I'd already fallen in the [expletive deleted] river once that day, and that was one time too many. An unvarnished 'access=no' sounds just plain weird to me - as if asserting that a way is not a way. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
