On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 17:32, Warin <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/8/25 13:45, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > 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. > It would leave it for data consumers to decide about horse access since no specific value is specified. If we know what the horse access is, we should specify it with horse=*
On Fri, 8 Aug 2025 at 21:41, Ian Steer via Talk-au < [email protected]> wrote: > 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 ? > You can and should, but a barrier=gate alone is ambiguous, is it a locked gate, or is it more like an animal barrier which you can open to pass through. So it's best when adding a barrier=gate to a highway=track or highway=path to specify locked=yes/no and also to specify each access restriction eg. motor_vehicle=private (only authorised vehicles can pass through the gate), foot=yes (walkers can pass the gate). It's common to also apply the same access tags to the ways "upstream" of the gate, this makes it easier for maps to visually indicate access without needing to run routing algorithms to try and make some guesses about it.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
