You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
vehicle/access=forestry and vehicle/access=agricultural are a special case of vehicle/access=private, they only allow certain people to use a track/road.
A driving ban (that only allows agricultural or forestry traffic) actually prohibits normal bikes from using a track/street, so imho it should also be rendered in white.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The reasoning behind this decision is that usually (in practice) access=forestry|agricultural highways are bikable and most taggers may not realize that such access restriction actually prohibits bicycles from using them. See taginfo for instance where only 17% of access=agricultural has a bicycle=yes indication, which seems way too low.
I'm not aware of any tracks that would be dedicated exclusively for agricultural/forestry vehicles and not accessible for pedestrians/bike. The only case I am aware of are actually access=private tracks (which should be tagged as such).
Happy to reconsider if I'm missing something though.
vehicle/access=forestry
andvehicle/access=agricultural
are a special case of vehicle/access=private, they only allow certain people to use a track/road.A driving ban (that only allows agricultural or forestry traffic) actually prohibits normal bikes from using a track/street, so imho it should also be rendered in white.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: