On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 13:17 Fernando Trebien <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 3:53 PM Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 12:41 Jarek Piórkowski <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 13:32, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 11:25 Fernando Trebien < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I never thought that emergency access would determine highway > >> >> classification. It seems like a secondary use of the way, not its > main > >> >> use/purpose. > >> > > >> > motor_vehicle=no would exclude most emergency vehicles. > >> > >> I thought we were saying access tags like motor_vehicle are legal > >> access, not physical access. I do not expect emergency vehicles to be > >> excluded by legal access tags. > > > > access=no by itself is absolute. I would expect most roads in the DMZ > between the Koreas (that aren't too overgrown and weathered away from a > half century of being disused) would be an extreme example. You're not > getting even fire or paramedic vehicles down it, period, it's not happening. > > Actually access=* gets overridden by any other more specific access > tag in the access hierarchy [1]. So access=no+foot=permissive means no > access to everyone except pedestrians, which are explicitly > authorized. > Correct, that's also what I hoped to be expressing as well, but I may not have been particularly clear. >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
