On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 4:58 PM Mateusz Konieczny <[email protected]> wrote: > > Feb 27, 2019, 7:31 PM by [email protected]: > > motor_vehicle=no would exclude most emergency vehicles. > > No, it would not. motor_vehicle=no is a legal limitation.
Currently, it actually would because emergency=* is nested under motor_vehicle=* in the access tags hierarchy. [1] So to express that motor vehicles (cars, trucks, etc.) are forbidden but emergency vehicles are not, both motor_vehicle=no + emergency=yes are required. The same would happen if access=no was used instead of motor_vehicle=no. I agree that typically emergency vehicles are allowed essentially everywhere due to the nature of their emergency work, so maybe the hierarchy should be changed by moving emergency=* to be a sibling, not a child of motor_vehicle=*, or perhaps even a sibling of vehicle=* since emergency work in certain areas might be provided using human or animal-powered modes of transport. > And if anything, presence of legal motor_vehicle=no may hint > that motor vehicles would be able to pass it, so it was made illegal. Usually yes. But when used on highway=path, I wouldn't be so sure. Or if one for whatever reason redundantly puts motor_vehicle=no on, say, a sidewalk, I wouldn't be so sure either. > So I would consider motor_vehicle=no as making it more, not less > likely that road is passable. > > To exclude emergency vehicles one should tag physical, not legal > barriers. Agreed again, though it is still possible that even emergency vehicles are not legally allowed in certain places, such as military and/or conflict zones. [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access#Land-based_transportation -- Fernando Trebien _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
