Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-07 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-07 Thread 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.

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-07 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-07 Thread 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).

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-07 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-06 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-06 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-06 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-05 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-05 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-05 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-05 Thread 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,

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-05 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-05 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-05 Thread 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

[Tagging] Apparent conflicting/redundant access tags

2020-08-05 Thread 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: