Talk:Tag:access=designated
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I propose to remove "or may be just a suggested route (e.g. bicycles can in most jurisdictions ride on any street, but some particular streets are recommended and signed as such.) ". Nowadays relations are used to present this information. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- +1, and I would also remove "i.e. normally a vehicle is banned, but in this case it is allowed", because that is only "yes". --Tordanik 14:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- + 1 to cases where access=yes should be used Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Changed (some discussion happened on mailing list) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- + 1 to cases where access=yes should be used Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Proposed addition
I propose to add "Typically it is used on ways legally dedicated to specific modes of travel by a law or by the rules of traffic.", after "for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport.". Currently only weakest reason to use this tag are described (note, this sentence is based on defition on Tag:access=official but describes current usage of foo=designated). Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Changed Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think a pretty simple change could be made to this page; even the page itself admits that the tag 'access=designated' by definition is meaningless. The proposal amounts to making it say this -- Deprecated and strongly discouraged. If you think you want to use the tag access=designated, you don't. You almost certainly mean 'access=no' (starting by excluding everything), and then, for example, foot=designated, hov=designated, ski=designated, and so on, "designating" access to the way only to a limited set of travel types. Key:access#Transport_mode_restrictions explains; 'access' is the top level access restriction, so by definition, you can't "designate" all modes of transit.
- Frankly, the fact that this page exists in its current form and doesn't exactly discourage use of this tag, confused the hell out of me trying to understand access restrictions, until I realized it was a hierarchy. This page doesn't help explain that. It actually muddies the waters quite a lot. Skybunny (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- In current form this page describes <any transport key>=designated. Maybe it should be moved to designated value for access keys? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Does this imply actual usability?
I would think so, should this be added to the description? RicoZ (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Typically yes, though in theory one may build something that is formally cycleway bit it is nearly unusable for bicycles. It still would bicycle=designated. But something like that is extremely rare ( I am unaware about any real examples ) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- The important part yes that lack of usability or poor usability is not changing whatever *=designated is OK. For example sidewalk from http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/79/images/rampton1.jpg (image from http://www.camcycle.org.uk/newsletters/79/article6.html) still may be tagged as highway=foot + foot=designated + bicycle=designated - despite poor usability Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand this change. Certainly *=no does imply nothing about actual usability. One could argue that an explicit *=yes does imply a bit usability - unfortunately the *=yes often comes as side-effect of other signs (eg vehicle=yes implies bicycle=yes) which degrades amount of usability information contained in *=yes. I would agree that *=permissive does imply usability as hardly someone would apply it when usability is not given. So there are big differences in how much the particular tag values imply about usability. RicoZ (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Example of designated and unusable from mailing list: right lane on http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/2uo21bX7_QTp8wtdN_J92Q/photo Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- No doubt there are exceptions to any rule - which is why I wrote "is not only the access right but also implies intended usability for the designated purpose(s)" in my edit. I think "intended usability" is very close to reality, will be rare to designate unsuitable ways deliberately. Maybe we should highlight the intended. RicoZ (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind if I join this discussion. Imo, we should avoid making it sound like usability should be a factor when using (or not using) the designated value. The previous phrasing, "indicator of usability", seemed a bit misleading in that regard. --Tordanik 09:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- *=designated means for me: access right=yes + "intended usability" which should be corrected by other (not access) tags in cases of mismatch of designated and real world usability. Designated is usually an explicit sign which should be mapped as is. RicoZ (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Exactly - elephant=designated is likely to be passable by elephants. But whatever it is really usable should not influence usage of elephant=designated Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind if I join this discussion. Imo, we should avoid making it sound like usability should be a factor when using (or not using) the designated value. The previous phrasing, "indicator of usability", seemed a bit misleading in that regard. --Tordanik 09:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- No doubt there are exceptions to any rule - which is why I wrote "is not only the access right but also implies intended usability for the designated purpose(s)" in my edit. I think "intended usability" is very close to reality, will be rare to designate unsuitable ways deliberately. Maybe we should highlight the intended. RicoZ (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Example of designated and unusable from mailing list: right lane on http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/2uo21bX7_QTp8wtdN_J92Q/photo Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand this change. Certainly *=no does imply nothing about actual usability. One could argue that an explicit *=yes does imply a bit usability - unfortunately the *=yes often comes as side-effect of other signs (eg vehicle=yes implies bicycle=yes) which degrades amount of usability information contained in *=yes. I would agree that *=permissive does imply usability as hardly someone would apply it when usability is not given. So there are big differences in how much the particular tag values imply about usability. RicoZ (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Remove bicycle=official?
AFAIK bicycle=official is a duplicate of bicycle=designated that has a clearly lower use Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would agree to remove it. Seems to be a duplicate - as I understand it, there is probably nothing more official than something designated, at least in Germany where "designated" means a legal and structural designation.--geow (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- 4 years later: I will now will remove the official example. --Langläufer (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
approved -> deprecated?
I think it's confusing that this tag has an "approved" status but can't be used. Can we change it to "deprecated"? This is an unusual situation because only the value "designated" is approved I think. maro21 17:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)