On 17/01/2012 14:20, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Colin Smale<[email protected]> wrote:
On 17/01/2012 03:31, Anthony wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 9:30 AM, John Sturdy<[email protected]> wrote:
I understand "access=no" as meaning no *public* access, but perhaps
that is better covered by "access=private".
access=private doesn't make much sense on land that is publicly owned.
Right of access is different from ownership.
Not every bit of land owned by a government is public.
I wasn't talking about every bit of land owned by a government. I'm
talking about public rights of way with legal use restrictions.
Forgive me, you used the phrase "publicly owned" and I jumped to the
conclusion you were talking about land owned by {local,central}
governments, and there is plenty of that, much of which is off-limits to
the general public. I still have problems making sense of your assertion
that access=private doesn't make much sense on land that is publicly owned.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
