Talk:Tag:access=no

This page is extremely misleading as it's written purely from the perspective of motor vehicles, which is, of course, incorrect. Barriers, such as bollards are no hindrance to pedestrians or bicycles etc. Access=no is confusing. It's much clearer to define access individually for each class. Contradictory tagging is to be discouraged: access=no means no access for anybody. Adding psv=yes contradicts it. --DaveF63 (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

For many reasons it is quite hard to decide when to use access=no or e.g. motor_vehicle=no. I understand the first paragraph of this page in a way, that access=no is nearly never applicable in real world mapping (I don't live even close to such military or government facilities). To my opinion, the first and the last paragraph contradict each other. A military or government facility open for public transport... I really don't understand that.

Gppes

access=no is rarely useful alone, meaning it would likely be combined with another access: tag, such as a carpool lane/ramp being tagged access=no access:hov=yes (and probably also access:bus=yes access:motorcycle=yes access:psv=yes, at least where I live), which means the legal restriction is based on the mode alone. In contrast, access=private means that all modes are banned by default unless one has been granted specific permission, such as roads inside a gated area. The military/govt verbiage seems like a red herring to me. StephenTX (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Officially no access, but everybody sneaks in anyway

Allow differentiating

• Places where the public can forget about entering, as the authorities have sealed it off with deadly laser fences, etc. vs.
• The same places, but with the deadly stuff aimed just a little too high, so everyone just squeezes under the beam and goes there anyway (to bathe in the hot springs, etc.)

Jidanni (talk) 04:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

That would a new tag (access:practical?), though it is getting a bit subjective. In access we have a legal status so both cases would be tagged in the same way. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Here is some more mulling: So there should be two tag groups:

• Formal status (de jure)
  • Places that are officially "off limits" (prohibited) to the public
  • Places that are officially open to the public
  • Places that are assumed open to the public, as there is no rule against it
  • Places that, well, gosh, we don't know if they are open to the public or not
  • Places that we don't even assume that much about, so don't give this tag at all yet.
• Informal status (de facto)
  • Matches formal status
  • Every goes there anyway (sneaks under fence, walks past warning signs, etc.), despite prohibition
  • Nobody goes there anyway (radiation level still too high, despite government saying it is now safe.)

Jidanni (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You are making tagging complicated with no obvious benefits. -- CBRS (talk) 19:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)