2010/9/20 Dave F. <[email protected]>: > On 20/09/2010 09:07, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> I prefer asuming that a gate is closed (I tag them with access=private >> in these cases anyway) > > This is a bad assumption to have. Just because a gate is closed, it doesn't > mean your not allowed access.
maybe I wasn't clear: I am tagging gates with the access-restrictions that apply. I do this with access for closed gates (access=private/destination) and with exceptions like foot=yes, bicycle=yes, motorcar=yes. If applies, also add maxheight or height tags. I didn't care for motorcycles, wheelchairs, horses and others until now, but sometimes information for those can be taken from the kind of obstacle (gates exist in great variety why at least width is an important extra information, but others like [1] are more predictable for certain modes of movement) and I think we could also have different tags for "pysically impossible" "allowed/forbidden". The first can sometimes be expressed by width and height (and maxweight, etc.), but not in all cases. The latter is what we usually describe with access and subtags (foot etc.). Another approach [2] to map physical possibility would be to define all possible barrier types and every application can decide based on the type and maybe measurements if it lets it's user through. > barrier=gate means it's a gate & nothing else. It could be open/closed & all > sorts of traffic could legitimately have access. yes > Tag what you see on the ground. If you don't know, don't tag it. what also means: "no tag -> no information" - this is opposed to the idea of defaults (which would be deriving the information from the fact that a tag is _not_ set). I agree. Cheers, Martin [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:TR-a.JPG [2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/New_barrier_types#Tag_values _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
