It seems to me that access is forbidden to a private road because the landowner says so. It is not a public right of way, and it will remain so for the foreseeable future. If a bridge that normally would be a public right of way is closed, I would like to see that rendered differently on a map from a private road. On a low level the information is the same: you can't use this way. But this leaves unanswered questions: Is the way completely unused and unmaintained, or is access just forbidden to the public? Is access forbidden indefinitely or will it be allowed again in the future? As a map user, I'd like to be able to easily find the answers to these questions.
I think access=no make sense for any closed road/bridge, but I'd like some supporting tags to supply the rest of the information. The access page on the wiki <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access> mentions some time restriction tags (date_on, date_off, time_on, time_off). These could work for seasonal or temporary closures but I'm not too sure how to use them. On another note, I don't like rendering of the access=no/private<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=44.50376&lon=-73.16416&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF>tag. I think the red highlighting stands out way too much. Private/closed roads should stand out less than their open counterparts in my opinion. highway=construction<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.9021&lon=-73.1967&zoom=14&layers=B000FTF>, and rail=abandoned/disused<http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=44.81774&lon=-73.09425&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF>are both less obvious on the sippy map than in use rail and highways. Am I alone here, or do other people agree? I probably should move this conversation to the tagging list at this point. Is it just tagg...@openstreetmap.org? Zeke On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > 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
