Ok I want to move forward with a new impractical access value proposal that I believe will address several common issues raised in this and other discussions:
- Clear distinction between legal vs. physical restrictions.
- A simple dropdown option for iD users to prevent misuse of
noaccess value. - A way to tag routes impractical for certain vehicles not covered by existing scale tags (e.g., strollers, motorcycles, …).
- Reducing misuse of
access=nofor blocked, under-construction, or impassable sections. - Clarifying tagging of narrow urban ways, e.g.,
width=1 + motor_vehicle=impractical.
Proposed Wiki Description
impractical
“This tag indicates that a way has no legal or signed restrictions, but is physically impractical due to trail conditions, obstacles, or danger.
While more descriptive tags (e.g.,smoothness,width,mb:scale,sac_scale,obstacle, …) are preferred, this tag provides useful information when those are unavailable (such as a scale tag for the vehicle).”
Addressing Concerns
- Overlap with existing tags – This is a common issue in OSM (e.g.,
tracktype=grade1alongsidesurface=dirt).- The recommendation is for mappers and data consumers to prioritize additional tags when available.
- Do we need more keywords to describe impractical ways under other access values (
permissive,designated,discouraged, …)?- No, because the goal is to keep it simple for beginners to provide a basic indication.
- If a way is
permissive, it can be considered as already suitable. If it’sprivateordiscouraged, routers will already avoid it.
Open Questions
- Any alternative word for
impractical? Options:unsuitable,impassable, or another native English term? - What’s the process? Can I start using it and document it in the wiki, or does it require a formal proposal?