Re: [talk-au] Fire Access Tracks, tagging as access=private ?

Sat, 09 Aug 2025 00:07:12 -0700 


On 8/8/25 21:34, Ian Steer via Talk-au 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 ?

Ian




1) the gates are usually locked. The public do not have a key. That said 
one gate local to me has had the padlock replaced with a bolt and nut .. 
you would not know unless you looked.


2) there is usually signage.


3) the tracks are in a National Park .. most tracks are closed to the 
public's vehicles.


---------------------


Ian please change the subject line from 'digest' etc to the subject of 
the original post. Also redirecting the reply to be yourself only fails 
to inform others that there has been a response. I have made this go to 
both the list and a CC to yourself.





-----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


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au






















					Reply via email to