On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Zeke Farwell <ezeki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In this case, I'd say the renderer is right. Both access=private and >> access=no mean essentially the same thing - you aren't allowed there without >> explicit approval. In the case of access=no, that approval happens to come >> from a government agency, but I see no reason that needs to be drawn >> differently. > > > I disagree, perhaps access=private and access=no do mean the same thing, > but in that case access=no is not a good option for a closed bridge. > Well, I didn't say they mean exactly the same thing, just essentially the same thing, within the context of a map. There are two distinct situations: > > 1. A road/bridge is private and access is only allowed for specified > users. Condition of the road is fine, so even if you are not allowed, you > could choose to break the rules and use the road/bridge as long as there is > no gate. > 2. A road/bridge is closed because it is unsafe, under construction, or > impassible. Even if you are granted access, it would not be desirable to > use said road/bridge. > > Road condition is separate from access=*. Safety is separate from access=*. In any case, access=closed tells us none of this. There are perfectly safe roads which are in perfect condition, but which are closed. > It's been decided that access=private definitely indicates sitation 1. > Situation 2 does not have a definite tagging scheme. Except for under > construction. > Sure it does. There's smoothness=impassible, which arguably could also be used for unsafe. If you don't like using smoothness=impassible to indicate an unsafe bridge, come up with some sort of safety=unsafe tag (not sure how verifiable it'll be, though).
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
