On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 11:59 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < [email protected]> wrote:
> > Dec 1, 2020, 00:44 by [email protected]: > > > Am Di., 1. Dez. 2020 um 00:39 Uhr schrieb Lukas Richert < > [email protected]>: > > I wouldn't tag this as foot=no or access=no. There are many trails in my > area that are clearly animal tracks and seldom used by people - but it is > allowed for people to walk on these and they are sometimes significant > shortcuts so allowing routing over them in some cases would be good. > > > +1 > > +1, though in cases of protected areas with "do not leave signed trails" > rules, access=no > would be a viable tagging > +1, it's unreasonable for mappers to be mind readers about the intent of land managers. Either the public is allowed to walk on these paths, or they are not. There isn't really a middle ground here. Though of course, it is up to renderers to render access=no trails differently to make access=no actually solve the problem being posed (the public following paths in OSM that they shouldn't)
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
