Navigation for emergency vehicles will let them know whether the barrier is impassable like a wall or removable like a guard rail. Using access:practical=no would be overall very useful for highways because access=no refers to only legal access, which can be ignored by these vehicles. It’s just that some objects can be removed after some work which is why I proposed emergency:practical=permissive earlier since there might be a better way that’s easily accessible to those vehicles nearby. It may not be the best tag though.
please, do not ask for feedback about your idea if you are considering unacceptable for people to respond with “we dislike this idea”.
I know from my own experience it is unpleasant to get feedback “this idea is bad” but…
how person would know that access for given mode is impractical but be unable to fill surface value?
(I am fine with say bicycle:practical and fully support more detailed more objective tags)
1 Like
Boom barriers (barrier=lift_gate) are usually intentionally designed such that they break if someone drives through them (especially in the case of railway crossings). From a legal standpoint, one isn’t allowed to do that though.
Of course the question is how you determine that something isn’t practically possible if the law doesn’t allow it. It’s essentially guesswork anyhow.
But if we want to entertain such tagging, I don’t like that access:practical is in the access namespace. It basically reads like “In practice, the legal access is so-and-so”, which doesn’t make much sense.
The most general english word I found that fits is traversable. I’d be fine with saying: “If it’s traversable, set traversable=*”. That key can then be namespaced with all kinds of transport modes and conditionals, though more detailed tags should be used where appropriate.
Relatedly, if a fence can be climbed, should we then also tag sac_scale?
(I am fine with say
bicycle:practicaland fully support more detailed more objective tags)
yes, redefining the “access” key(s) is a no, but creating similar keys like access:practical could be better. It remains subjective, but maybe we find out we can agree for the biggest part and it works.
Yesterday this bridge was posted on talk-de:
https://bsky.app/profile/susjaeger.bsky.social/post/3loh52c7ip22i
no signs, but would you ride your bicycle? Even push it?
In OpenStreetMap it is here
Mapped with width=0.9, obstacle=precipice and with water right next to it.
I would maybe add handrail:left=no, only handrail:right=yes is tagged right now.
So should we also add bicycle:practical for data consumers that don’t look at width, obstacle, or nearby features?
And then tag bicycle:practical=no here, because it’s too narrow, but also on a high-speed road with no shoulder, because you’d get hit? The problem is always that the tags about “practicality” don’t let data users know what the problem is and don’t let them evaluate it and decide for themselves. The high-speed road might be fine at 6am on a summer Sunday. This bridge might be fine on an unloaded city bike if you hold on to the railing and roll along, or it would be a trade-off between that bridge obstacle and the narrow path or detouring along the 100 km/h road nearby. I would probably make a different decision riding a city bike than someone on a racing bicycle, different people in different contexts will make different decisions, right?
4 Likes
Mapped with
width=0.9,obstacle=precipiceand with water right next to it.
this was added as a result of the discussion on the mailing list.
I think it is not possible from the “water right next to it” to conclude a way is dangerous, or that you shouldn’t even try pushing you loaden cargo bike
2 Likes
Great, so tag bicycle:practical:cargo:loaded=no?
And on the Landstraße bicycle:practical:not:mamil=no?
Apologies — I got genuinely frustrated after putting time and effort into a discussion that felt then disconnected from the broader community consensus.
That said, it’d be great if more silent readers spoke up. Not everyone knows the history, and clearer access to past discussions—via links, summaries, or a wiki update—would help newcomers engage without repeating the same points.
Because in my region, what’s perceived as impractical usually isn’t about the surface—it’s more about factors like incline, smoothness, obstacles, or missing tags. Often, mappers either aren’t aware of these details or just aim to provide the bare minimum.
That’s a fair point — ideally, we’d have detailed tags for every way. But in practice, that level of detail isn’t always available, especially in less-mapped regions or when contributors lack time or local knowledge.
A “practicality” tag can still be useful — it shows the way’s been considered and might need more survey. More importantly, it gives mappers a place to note non-legal issues, helping keep access=* for actual legal or signed restrictions. That alone would clear up a lot of confusion and misuse.
But this is self-contradicting: a practicality tag shows the way might need more survey, but it would be used in less-mapped areas where that follow-up survey is less likely.
I’m not entirely opposed to a *:practical=* tag that would basically function as a fixme, but I really doubt it’ll get updated. Are there any OSM examples of temporary or transitionary tags that do reliably get refined?
And again I ask, practical for whom? People riding to a picnic alongside their 8 year old child, or people on a carbon fibre road bike?
Mapping verifiable physical properties of everything definitely isn’t easy, but it’s what’s worked best for OSM.
2 Likes