On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 11:07 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 13. Aug 2018, at 14:35, Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > All I was attempting here was to point out that access=no is different from > > access=private and can have valid uses. It's not crazy to have both. It > > may be rare to have access=no, but any time > > you see a sign "No vehicles beyond this point" it applies. > > actually that is vehicle=no > > Still I agree with the rest of what you wrote, there is a distinction of > private and no, at least conceptually (not so sure about actual tagging), and > no would expectly be much fewer than anything else.
OK, mostly makes sense. 'no' = 'impassable', 'you can't drive/cycle/ride here because of hazards.' 'private' = 'forbidden', 'you can't drive/cycle/ride here because the landowner/government doesn't allow it.' 'access=no' standing alone (not 'transport_mode=no', not 'access=no transport_mode=something') is still pretty nonsensical - what is the point of mapping a way that's impassable to everything? When is a way not a way? It does indeed make sense when some transport mode has an answer other than 'no'. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
