Just because it’s not as often used in this way doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
It would be in line with the usage I’ve seen in the access:lanes tag, e.g. access:lanes=yes|yes|bus or access:lanes=bicycle|yes|hsv I’m not questioning that: access=no foot=yes is correct to allow access for foot traffic only. It’s just that from the usage that I’ve seen, access=foot should have the same meaning. Obviously, the moment you want to define access for more than a single branch of the access tree, or you want to be able to specify an access level that’s different than yes, you will need to use the individual tags. From: Andy Townsend <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, 20 April 2018 21:07 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Tagging] Small gate only for foot access On 20/04/2018 11:26, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: I believe the correct shorthand for access=no foot=yes would be just access=foot ? That's not the way that access tags generally work. There are 784 at taginfo: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/access=foot but it's much lower than the other values: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/access#values which is usually an indication that "that's not the right tag for that". The access section in the wiki https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Aaccess isn't the clearest of sections, but it does try and explain how these work. Best Regards, Andy
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
