Continuing the discussion from Passable vs impassable scrub (or heath):
Well… Key:foot - OpenStreetMap Wiki also has "
prohibited or impossible" by another person… Path examples - OpenStreetMap Wiki also gives examples where
foot=no is used to mean
impassable on foot, etc. Conflicting wiki edits aside, I also seem to recall more than a few discussions from the times pasts on the subject, which all seems to indicate that there seem to different opinions, understandings, and practices.
I’d agree that in vast majority of the cases one would use them to mark legality of such mode of transport.
However, I myself (and I suspect many others) have been known to mark
motorcar=no to mark barriers/passages which are physically impassable by bicycles/motorcars, even if the law did not say anything about that (or at least there were no signs - it is quite possible that some law prohibits citizens from doing physically impossible things, but I haven’t done a deep research on that). IMHO, in such cases, benefits gained by marking them as impassable for such transport mode far outweigh potential slight inaccuracy in definition likely preferred by majority.
Perhaps those were not the best tags (can you suggest better ones which work? I’d love to give more precision!), but it gets the job done - if you are using
bicycle/motorcar/... you should not go there. Whether it’s illegal and you’ll get shot by SWAT by attempting to cross there, or it is merely physically impossible to do and you’d fall to your death by trying to venture there, the final message to data consumer is very similar: if
your_transport_mode=no, just don’t do it.
24 posts - 10 participants
Ce sujet de discussion accompagne la publication sur https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/foot-no-prohibited-impossible/5135