If there is just a gate, but no signage saying it is restricted to emergency vehicles only, why wouldn't you just add "barrier=gate" at the appropriate places ?
Ian > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <talk-au- > [email protected]> > Sent: Friday, 8 August 2025 7:00 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Talk-au Digest, Vol 215, Issue 3 > > Send Talk-au mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: > Contents of Talk-au digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Fire Access Tracks, tagging as access=private ? (Darryl Ross) > 2. Re: Fire Access Tracks, tagging as access=private ? > (Andrew Harvey) > 3. Re: Fire Access Tracks, tagging as access=private ? (Warin) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2025 13:10:47 +1000 > From: Darryl Ross <[email protected]> > To: OSM-Au <[email protected]> > Subject: [talk-au] Fire Access Tracks, tagging as access=private ? > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hey All, > > Before I go make a bunch of changes, I just wanted to make sure I'm about to > do the right thing. > > There are a bunch of fire / forest management tracks in the Dandenong > Ranges National Park which are showing up as roads on the mapping > software I use for my walking (CityStrides for those interested). All of these > tracks are all gated from vehicle traffic so I'm working out how to make them > not "roads" without messing up OSM. > > An example of one of these tracks is > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/410016222. This is currently tagged: > > highway=track > foot=yes > bicycle=yes > > Is there any problem of adding access=private to these tracks and leaving the > foot/bicycle tags in place? Is there any reason to *not* do this? > > Thanks > Darryl > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk- > au/attachments/20250808/be308d63/attachment-0001.htm> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2025 13:45:10 +1000 > From: Andrew Harvey <[email protected]> > To: Darryl Ross <[email protected]> > Cc: OSM-Au <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Fire Access Tracks, tagging as access=private ? > Message-ID: > <CAD5Vjsuvb8oX5oSUAS3q10kEb_D+Qrgi3L5q51QB4eRXughm5g@m > ail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > My preference is to set motor_vehicle=private and omit the generic access > tag, so > > highway=track > foot=yes > bicycle=yes > motor_vehicle=private > (no access tag set) > > This makes it clear that authorised motor vehicles (like fire trucks, emergency > services, national park rangers etc) can drive on the track and the public can > walk and cycle on the track. > > Potentially stepping up to foot=designated + bicycle=designated if they are > signposted as explicitly allowed. > > Technically access=private + foot=yes + bicycle=yes would mean the same > thing, it implies that it's private, except public for walkers and cyclists, but I > find that the tagging can be confused as private for everyone, and especially > in this case it's public land and public access, just with restrictions for > motor_vehicles. > > Though others in the community have other opinions, it's been discussed a > few times, for example at > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164404229 > > On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 13:14, Darryl Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hey All, > > > > Before I go make a bunch of changes, I just wanted to make sure I'm > > about to do the right thing. > > > > There are a bunch of fire / forest management tracks in the Dandenong > > Ranges National Park which are showing up as roads on the mapping > > software I use for my walking (CityStrides for those interested). All > > of these tracks are all gated from vehicle traffic so I'm working out > > how to make them not "roads" without messing up OSM. > > > > An example of one of these tracks is > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/410016222. This is currently tagged: > > > > highway=track > > foot=yes > > bicycle=yes > > > > Is there any problem of adding access=private to these tracks and > > leaving the foot/bicycle tags in place? Is there any reason to *not* do this? > > > > Thanks > > Darryl > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-au mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk- > au/attachments/20250808/c01c435f/attachment-0001.htm> > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2025 17:28:53 +1000 > From: Warin <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Fire Access Tracks, tagging as access=private ? > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" > > > On 8/8/25 13:45, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > My preference is to set motor_vehicle=private and omit the generic > > access tag, so > > > > highway=track > > foot=yes > > bicycle=yes > > motor_vehicle=private > > (no access tag set) > > > > This makes it clear that authorised motor vehicles (like fire trucks, > > emergency services, national park rangers etc) can drive on the track > > and the public can walk and cycle on the track. > > > > Potentially stepping up to foot=designated?+ bicycle=designated if > > they are signposted as explicitly?allowed. > > > > Technically access=private?+ foot=yes?+ bicycle=yes would mean the > > same thing, it implies that it's private, except public for walkers > > and cyclists, but I find that the tagging can be confused?as private > > for everyone, and especially in this case it's public land and public > > access, just with restrictions for motor_vehicles. > > > > Though others in the community have other opinions, it's been > > discussed a few times, for example at > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/164404229 > > This would allow horse riders even though the tagging has not mentioned > them. The NSW NP have signs to say what is publicly allowed ... they may not > indicate what is not allowed or what is 'privately' allowed. Locally to me I can > tell walkers and cyclists are allowed on maintenance tracks, cyclists are not > allowed on walking paths while walkers are, camping is not allowed. I've not > seen any indication for horse riders in my locality. > > > > > On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 13:14, Darryl Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hey All, > > > > Before I go make a bunch of changes, I just wanted to make sure > > I'm about to do the right thing. > > > > There are a bunch of fire / forest management tracks in the > > Dandenong Ranges National Park which are showing up as roads on > > the mapping software I use for my walking (CityStrides for those > > interested). All of these tracks are all gated from vehicle > > traffic so I'm working out how to make them not "roads" without > > messing up OSM. > > > > An example of one of these tracks is > > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/410016222. This is currently tagged: > > > > highway=track > > foot=yes > > bicycle=yes > > > > Is there any problem of adding access=private to these tracks and > > leaving the foot/bicycle tags in place? Is there any reason to > > *not* do this? > > > > Thanks > > Darryl > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-au mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-au mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk- > au/attachments/20250808/d03785fe/attachment-0001.htm> > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Talk-au Digest, Vol 215, Issue 3 > *************************************** _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
