Gregory ([email protected]) wrote: > Some stats on usage as of Aug 2009: > 151 status=locked > 106 status=open > 49 status=closed > 21 locked=yes > 16 locked=no > 11 closed=yes > 4 open=yes > 2 open=no > 2 gate:locked=no > 2 gate_lock=yes (possibly the waterways lock meaning) > single uses of locked=true, locked=overnight, status=closed?, > status=unlocked > source: searching > http://osmdoc.com<http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/status/#values> for > tags I could think of. > > > Personally I would propose the following be added to the barrier:gate wiki > page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dgate) > status=open > status=unlocked (to mean closed but unlocked) > status= locked (implies closed) > > * This doesn't cover if it is fixed open (e.g. rusted or excessive plant > growth holding it back). > * We could make it gate:status=..., but I don't see that status would clash > or cause confusion with other tagging of the node. > * It could possibly be further extended by status:day=* and status:night=* > for those normally changed based roughly on daylight, otherwise the more > complicated opening_hours proposal could be used. > > Who supports the this tagging, or suggests amendments? > I suppose it should be cross-posted to the tagging list, is somebody on that > list and can forward it please? > I'll also edit the wiki Talk page > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:barrier%3Dgate > I support this. I used the locked status to adjust the labelling of the gate when I compile the maps for my GPS, as it's really useful to know in advance if a locked gate is blocking a path. At the moment my style rules have to match all sorts of different tag/key combinations, so a unified approach would be great.
I personally prefer locked=yes to status=locked, but could happily live with either variant so long as it is applied consistently. -- Charlie _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
