Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7. Aug 2020, at 15:51, Paul Johnson  wrote:
> 
> I don't see what's not clear about access=* overriding all access not 
> explicitly set. 


+1, and that‘s also the reason why it should not be used

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:56 AM Simon Poole  wrote:

> This is why access=yes is useless on highway objects as it is not clear if
> it overrides implicit access restrictions or not.
>

I don't see what's not clear about access=* overriding *all* access not
explicitly set.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

[Alan Mackie]

On Fri, 7 Aug 2020 at 07:36, Niels Elgaard Larsen  wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 17:12:48 +1000
> Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>
> >OK, now you've all got me confused!
> >
> >I always thought that access=yes means that it is open to the general
> >public, while access=no means that it's not open to the public?
>
>
> The issue is that it becomes the default for all other transport mode
> access.
>
> I once had OsmAnd direct me to turn my car right on a very tiny path.
>
> It was tagged as highway=foot,access=yes
>
This sounds like an OsmAnd bug. Paths should not be routable for cars
unless they specifically say car=yes, and maybe not even then.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

[Simon Poole]

This is why access=yes is useless on highway objects as it is not clear if it 
overrides implicit access restrictions or not. If it did it would have to be 
accompanied by a comprehensive list of forbidden access modes (and similar 
arguments apply to all but the simplest use of access=no too).

Am 7. August 2020 08:34:33 MESZ schrieb Niels Elgaard Larsen :
>On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 17:12:48 +1000
>Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>
>>OK, now you've all got me confused!
>>
>>I always thought that access=yes means that it is open to the general
>>public, while access=no means that it's not open to the public?
>
>
>The issue is that it becomes the default for all other transport mode
>access.
>
>I once had OsmAnd direct me to turn my car right on a very tiny path.
>
>It was tagged as highway=foot,access=yes
>
>
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

[Niels Elgaard Larsen]

On Thu, 6 Aug 2020 17:12:48 +1000
Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:

>OK, now you've all got me confused!
>
>I always thought that access=yes means that it is open to the general
>public, while access=no means that it's not open to the public?


The issue is that it becomes the default for all other transport mode
access.

I once had OsmAnd direct me to turn my car right on a very tiny path.

It was tagged as highway=foot,access=yes



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2020-08-05 at 13:58 -0700, Tod Fitch wrote:
> My reading of the wiki [1] indicates that the more specific tag
> overrides the less specific tag. And the transport mode section [2]
> of that has examples very much like those in your question.
> And:
> access=yes
> bicycle=no
> 
> Means you can walk, drive or ride a horse, etc. but you can’t
> bicycle.
> 
Although I would question that combination if I found it in use, it
would be a very strange situation.

Phil (trigpoint)


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Aug 6, 2020, 09:12 by graemefi...@gmail.com:

> OK, now you've all got me confused!
>
> I always thought that access=yes means that it is open to the general public, 
> while access=no means that it's not open to the public?
>
Yes, and it may be overriden by more specific tags.

Note that access=yes on say leisure=playground will be interpreted differently 
than on highway=residential.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

OK, now you've all got me confused!

I always thought that access=yes means that it is open to the general
public, while access=no means that it's not open to the public?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 17:20, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 2:59 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:
>> My reading of the wiki [1] indicates that the more specific tag overrides 
>> the less specific tag.
>
> So,
> access=yes
> foot=yes
>
> would then be redundant.  I don't have an example, but I have seen that too.

Technically yes, but there are some cases when tagging redundancy is
worth it or even useful for clarity.

For example, if it's in an area where you might expect access=* or
foot=* to be no, access=yes can be used to confirm that the way _is_
in fact open to the public (signed public route through a private
area, perhaps? like a golf course or a quarry?) and foot=yes can be
used to confirm that pedestrians do have access there as well (perhaps
it's on a motorway but pedestrians are allowed for some reason?).

You can also use this to communicate the actual value of the access=*
tag to your fellow mappers. In an area where access is unclear, if you
tag access=yes, you are saving other mappers from wondering if the way
is actually public, or if it has not yet been surveyed/edited to add
access=private. (In programming terms, access=yes is true, access=no
is false, and lack of an access=* tag is null)

> However, access=yes is a pretty broad statement.  There may be modes of 
> transport not yet contemplated (or which the mapper, and even the land 
> manager is not aware of) which in the future will be prohibited.

If the land manager is not aware of a mode of transport, are they
really in position to prohibit it right now? And in the future,
pedestrians could be prohibited too, and tagging would have to change
as well.

--Jarek

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

[Tod Fitch]

My reading of the wiki [1] indicates that the more specific tag overrides the 
less specific tag. And the transport mode section [2] of that has examples very 
much like those in your question.

So:
access=no
foot=yes

Means that all access other than foot is prohibited.

And:
access=yes
bicycle=no

Means you can walk, drive or ride a horse, etc. but you can’t bicycle.

For what its worth, I just had a question along this same line for a trail in a 
local wilderness park that I edited a year or so ago. All I did was split the 
way and keep the existing tagging (which I agreed with). But apparently the 
Strava app had a problem with the tagging (access=no, foot=designated, 
bicycle=designated), so I guess my reading of the wiki doesn’t match all data 
consumers implementations.

Cheers,

Tod

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Transport_mode_restrictions

> On Aug 5, 2020, at 1:44 PM, Mike Thompson  wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> If:
> access=no
> foot=yes
> 
> Does this mean that all access except foot travel is prohibited, or is it an 
> error?
> 
> If:
> access=yes
> bicycle=no
> 
> Does this mean that all access except bicycle travel is allowed, or is an 
> error?
> 
> Here is one example of the first case:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/834296397 
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 5. Aug. 2020 um 23:21 Uhr schrieb Mike Thompson :

>
> However, access=yes is a pretty broad statement.  There may be modes of
> transport not yet contemplated (or which the mapper, and even the land
> manager is not aware of) which in the future will be prohibited.
>


+1, "access=*" is a pretty broad statement. Generally the suggestion is to
use more specific tags for access and not "access", e.g. vehicle=no or
motor_vehicle=no.
While "access=*" is not an error, the situations where it is used could
often be better tagged with either "vehicle" or "motor_vehicle".

For example, from a strict reading of the wiki, "access=no" and "foot=yes"
would also imply emergency=no, disabled=no, dog=no, ski=no,
inline_skates=no and any other transport mode that we will introduce in the
future
(emergency might be hyperbole, the wiki also states: "Note that emergency
vehicles are generally not restricted by *legal* access rules"

Cheers
Martin

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Aug 5, 2020, 22:58 by t...@fitchfamily.org:

> so I guess my reading of the wiki doesn’t match all data consumers 
> implementations.
>
Yes, in many cases support is limited. Routers are usually dealing it with 
fairly well,
but for example iD editor is missing support for example for vehicle tag,
default map style is in general considering access tag only (as there is no 
good idea how to
do it otherwise), maybe Strava is also looking only at access tag?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Aug 5, 2020, 22:44 by miketh...@gmail.com:

> Hello,
>
> If:
> access=no 
> foot=yes 
>
> Does this mean that all access except foot travel is prohibited
>
yes

> , or is it an error? 
>
No, it is a correct tagging - though usually there is a better way to achieve 
this
(highway=footway / highway=pedestrian - maybe with bicycle=no)

> If:
> access=yes   
> bicycle=no   
>
> Does this mean that all access except bicycle travel is allowed
>
Yes

> , or is an error?
>
No, see OSM Wiki page about access (if anything is unclear let us know what is 
unclear).

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

[Mike Thompson]

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 2:59 PM Tod Fitch  wrote:

> My reading of the wiki [1] indicates that the more specific tag overrides
> the less specific tag.
>
So,
access=yes
foot=yes

would then be redundant.  I don't have an example, but I have seen that too.



> And the transport mode section [2] of that has examples very much like
> those in your question.
>
> So:
> access=no
> foot=yes
>
> Means that all access other than foot is prohibited.
>
> And:
> access=yes
> bicycle=no
>
> Means you can walk, drive or ride a horse, etc. but you can’t bicycle.
>
Makes sense, as long as that is what the consensus is.

However, access=yes is a pretty broad statement.  There may be modes of
transport not yet contemplated (or which the mapper, and even the land
manager is not aware of) which in the future will be prohibited.


> For what its worth, I just had a question along this same line for a trail
> in a local wilderness park that I edited a year or so ago. All I did was
> split the way and keep the existing tagging (which I agreed with). But
> apparently the Strava app had a problem with the tagging (access=no,
> foot=designated, bicycle=designated), so I guess my reading of the wiki
> doesn’t match all data consumers implementations.
>
Even the default renderer treats it different if access=no, and one or more
other modes =yes.  Not that we should tag for the renderer, but it
indicates that perhaps the maintainers of the default rendering style may
not (yet) have incorporated this understanding.

Mike
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

[Paul Johnson]

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 3:45 PM Mike Thompson  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> If:
> access=no
> foot=yes
>
> Does this mean that all access except foot travel is prohibited, or is it
> an error?
>

Correct, only pedestrians are allowed.


> If:
> access=yes
> bicycle=no
>
> Does this mean that all access except bicycle travel is allowed, or is an
> error?
>

Correct, everything but bicycles allowed.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

[Mike Thompson]

Hello,

If:
access=no
foot=yes

Does this mean that all access except foot travel is prohibited, or is it
an error?

If:
access=yes
bicycle=no

Does this mean that all access except bicycle travel is allowed, or is an
error?

Here is one example of the first case:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/834296397

Mike
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging