Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net> writes: > On 12/3/09 11:27 PM, Richard Welty wrote: >> On 12/3/09 11:00 PM, David Fawcett wrote: >> >>> I agree that it would be good to have a standard answer. I am >>> thinking that the tag should be used for both symbology and >>> connectivity. >>> >>> >>> >> i'm going to try out the suggested access=no/description=blahblahblah method >> see what i think about it. >> > and now that i've seen it, the mapnik rendering is not distinguishable > from access=private > > on the other hand, we don't tag to get a specific rendering effect from > an existing renderer.
Exactly! Don't tag for the renderer! > > maybe an additional term on access ("access=closed"), so that some > future renderer will be > able to distinguish the different reasons for restricted access. If the public does not have access at all then access=no is the appropriate tag, IMO. If you want to indicate the reason that should go into a separate tag. I don't think it is a good idea to invent a new access tag for every nuance of access restriction. No application can keep up with all those. If you want access=no to be rendered differently from access=private you can try to convince the people in charge of the rendering styles to do that. Matthias _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us