Jmapb <jm...@gmx.com> writes: > access=yes > access:conditional=destination @ (Oct-Apr: 20:00-07:00; May-Sep: > 22:30-07:00)
(ignoring foot/bicycle as that's not the point) If it's private, then access=yes is arguably not right, as permission is granted to the public, vs the public having a right of access. So I would use access=permissive instead of yes. But this is a far larger issue than this one place; it arguably applies to all paths on private land (that aren't a public right-of-way of course) where it's basically ok for the public to go. See 'yes' and 'permissive': https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access However, it seems the definition of permissive has drifted from what I remember. It used to be "no real permission is granted, but the owner has declined to object". Now, it seems to have a notion that permission has actually been granted somehow. I'm curious about this, and particularly from the English perspective, where I've seen signed "permissive paths". As opposed to the US, where there are unmarked paths in the woods on private property, and for some of those, locals know that it's basically ok to walk on them.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
