[JohnPercy]

Both access=”yes” and access=”no” tags are used in the maps a respectable number of times (9% and 5% respectively) yet because of the well-known yes/no bug can’t be used reliably in the themes. The values conflict for example with tests for tunnel=”yes”.
Would it make sense to map the access values to access_yes and access_no, as with other yes/no pairs?

Voluntary and Velocity themes - https://voluntary.nichesite.org

[Tobias]

access=yes isn’t included in the map at all. But you are right, there are still some legacy yes/no combinations, which could be cleaned up, although most are not very likely for conflicts.

Developer of Elevate mapstyle

[JohnPercy]

I guess access=”yes” isn’t a great deal of use, as it must be the default in any case. But it is in the OSM data even if not the OpenAndroMaps maps.
I encountered the conflict with pedestrian tunnels under Hyde Park, London which are marked access=”no” which created a conflict with tunnel=”yes”.

Voluntary and Velocity themes - https://voluntary.nichesite.org

[ChristianK]

Hi John,

You are right the pair access=”no” with tunnel=”yes” is probably a problem and should be cleared.
I would say that, for compatibility reasons, we should only modify access=”no” to access=”acc_no” and leave tunnel=yes as it is.

There is another artefact: bridge=yes IMO we should leave it as it is for compatibility reasons too

John, Tobias – whats you opinion?

There are some yes/nos that I strip completely from the OSM-Database prior to rendering to avoid problems.

	<translation>
		<name>remove no-Tags</name>
		<description>remove values from yes/no pairs to reduce effects of "common value bug" in mapsforge</description>
		<match mode="or" type="way">
			<tag k="oneway" v="no"/>
			<tag k="bridge" v="no"/>
			<tag k="tunnel" v="no"/>
			<tag k="noexit" v="no"/>	
			<tag k="access" v="yes"/>					
		</match>
		<output>
			<copy-unmatched/>
		</output>
	</translation>	

Regards, Christian

[JohnPercy]

@Christian: I think you are right

Voluntary and Velocity themes - https://voluntary.nichesite.org

[Tobias]

I think we added access=no for wilderness_hut/alpine_hut without public access, nobody thought about non public foot tunnels 🙂
Changing access=no is reasonable for me.
Looking deeper into that subject, I found those yes/no values besides that:
area=yes
bridge=yes
tunnel=yes/no
oneway=yes
trail_visibility=no
summit:cross=yes
drinking_water=yes/no
mountain_pass=yes
building=yes
lock=yes

Access is probably the biggest issue, but I don’t know which issues hide behind those.

Developer of Elevate mapstyle

[ChristianK]

Tobias wrote:

Looking deeper into that subject, I found those yes/no values besides that:

summit:cross=yes
drinking_water=yes/no
mountain_pass=yes

Are nodes, I dont expect problems with this.

trail_visibility=no
In the Italian Alps where the first world war took place there are lots of tunnels on tracks and paths – however, I dont expect trail_visibility=no with these paths.

bridge=yes
tunnel=yes/no
oneway=yes
all values=no are eliminated in tagtransform so if they occur in pairs nothing happens.

I would say lets change access=no to access=acc_no from today on and leave all other key/values as they are.

[Tobias]

ChristianK wrote:

all values=no are eliminated in tagtransform so if they occur in pairs nothing happens.

Ah, I didn’t really get the “if they occur in pairs” part in your first post.
If there would be big issues we would have stumbled across it earlier anyway (or maybe later :-)), so all fine with me.

Developer of Elevate mapstyle

[JohnPercy]

1. Do you not map drinking_water=”yes” for areas?
2. I can see the difficulty in changing any of the others, especially with a view to compatibility
3. trail_visibility=”no” could also conflict with bridge=”yes” etc. Of course if there is a bridge, I guess the trail is visible.
4. On second thoughts, would it be better to transform access=”no” to access=”private”?

Voluntary and Velocity themes - https://voluntary.nichesite.org

[Tobias]

JohnPercy wrote:

4. On second thoughts, would it be better to transform access=”no” to access=”private”?

It’s probably the same discussion we had with bicycle/foot=permissive and =yes. For me it makes no difference in rendering, the theory and others may differ.

Developer of Elevate mapstyle

[ChristianK]

JohnPercy wrote:

1. Do you not map drinking_water=”yes” for areas?

Actually not – according to the OSM-Rules.
There are 90.000 tags on Nodes and 500 on ways (not even one in UK), if you look at the overpass-turbo most are set at whole campsites aso…

JohnPercy wrote:

2. I can see the difficulty in changing any of the others, especially with a view to compatibility

Compatibility is a major issue – there are lots of users using different maps without changing themes – so if we transfom (eg) bridge=yes to bridge=br_yes in OAM not even one bridge will be rendered if someone use the internal locus themes. Thats no real issue for a (eg) rung – however for bridges, tunnels its an issue.

JohnPercy wrote:

3. trail_visibility=”no” could also conflict with bridge=”yes” etc. Of course if there is a bridge, I guess the trail is visible.

Agree

JohnPercy wrote:

4. On second thoughts, would it be better to transform access=”no” to access=”private”?

Could be done, however its not the same – we will proceed with access=acc_no

All this access stuff is a wide filed for discussion. Eg in UK the access is granted on walking paths except in the lambing season – how is this tagged and if, who renders this. In the other hand access is basicly forbidden where no paths are – in my experience you can walk everywhere if you behave well. So I ignore these access-tags when walking ( and have one eye on the OS-Landranger Map 😉 )

Best Regards,
Christian

[JohnPercy]

All very good and helpful. Thanks.
I take it for granted that the user (and the map data gatherer) has to interpret access according to local laws and customs. Generally, the access=”private” or access=”no” tags in UK data mean you really, really, can’t go there, either because it is genuinely private or totally locked off.
Rights of way are far trickier and probably not mappable in OSM which is supposed to depend on evidence on the ground. Your lambing example could however be tagged as conditional access: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions but I can’t imagine how one might render such complexities.

Voluntary and Velocity themes - https://voluntary.nichesite.org

[karlchick]

I realise this is an old post, but looking at parking=street_side and found that the only reliable way of identifying publicly accessible parking is when access=yes. But OAM tags do not include access=yes.

Would it be possible to add access=acc_yes, to match acc=no?

[karlchick]

Update: access=yes tag is also applicable to all parking amenities.

[Tobias]

karlchick wrote:

the only reliable way of identifying publicly accessible parking is when access=yes

The problem are the other 70% of parking amenities without any access=*:
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/amenity=parking#combinations

If you would assume only access=yes is public, all the others with no access would be dismissed. And I would assume although amenity=parking has no default access value, that in large parts of the world with not so detailed mapping public parking are mapped first as they are more a point of interest.

So for me access=private/customers etc. is more meaningful.

Developer of Elevate mapstyle

[Author]

Posts