sent from a phone
> On 14. Feb 2019, at 19:51, Tobias Zwick <o...@westnordost.de> wrote: > > I doubt access restrictions are used that way in reality. you can do this, but in general they are used like this, and in the cases where they aren’t, we should strive to improve the tagging, rather than redefine the meaning of the tags because of them. > > The absence of keys like the mentioned key walkable(, cycleable, > motorcarable, hgvable etc.) is a clear sign for that, these tags are from time to time proposed and then rejected because of verifiability issues > because there are > enough situations where the situation on the ground is clear for a > surveyor but there is no official sign. like for example? > There are many different road traffic legislations around the world and > (as I read many of them) I can tell you that there is a lot of variance > in how precisely and how close to reality they are written. And also, > how much the road authority feels the need to sign more or less obvious > road situations. well possible, there is the vienna convention on traffic which is signed by 74 countries so ~120 did not, including the US and China > In some legislations, there is no notion of motorways and motorroads, > but roads like this may nevertheless exist. would we want to adjust our standards to these exceptions? Can you give some concrete example? I would rather expect people walking on these fake „motorways“ if there aren’t alternatives, then avoiding them although they could. Cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
