Harmonizing barrier=bollard default access

In this topic it was noticed the default access rights for the different language versions of Tag:barrier=bollard are not in line with each other.

Details for language Wiki's
access=no foot=yes bicycle=yes mofa=yes moped=yes horse=yes
English 2008-10-21 2008-10-21 2008-10-21 2023-05-04 2023-05-04 2023-12-29
Français (FR) 2010-04-22 2010-04-22 2010-04-22 2023-05-26 2023-05-26
Deutsch (DE) 2010-12-27 2010-12-27 2010-12-27 2024-02-06 2024-02-06 2024-02-06
русский (RU) 2011-03-06 2011-03-06 2011-03-06 2023-10-04 2023-10-04
日本語 (JA) 2011-03-28 2011-03-28 2011-03-28
Nederlands (NL) 2011-11-02 2011-11-02 2011-11-02 2023-05-07 2023-05-07
Polski (PL) 2012-11-21 2012-11-21 2012-11-21
Čeština (CS) 2016-03-07 2016-03-07 2016-03-07
Español (ES) 2016-08-07 2016-08-07 2016-08-07
Português (PT) 2017-12-26 2017-12-26 2017-12-26 2023-07-07 2023-07-07
Italiano (IT) 2018-09-24 2018-09-24 2018-09-24
Magyar (HU) 2019-01-23 2019-01-23 2019-01-23

I am thinking of creating a new Wiki template and use it for all language that has “implies” already filled in so that it will be and stay consistent over all languages.


mofa/moped=yes is a more recent addition triggered by this topic but for me at least also logical, a moped/mofa is the same width as a bicycle, what is disputable are motorcyle and horse altough “horse=yes” has been recently added on the German page.

horse/motorcycle in combination with barrier=bollard are ~65% mapped as yes.

Details for access tags in combination with barrier=bollard
628416 bollards
foot          : yes=173435 (98.2%), designated=1362, no=1274, permissive=276, other=255
bicycle       : yes=150778 (94.6%), no=6699, designated=962, dismount=535, other=474
motor_vehicle :   no=36462 (88.0%), private=2230, permit=651, yes=516, other=1552
access        :    no=9640 (61.7%), yes=2517, private=1725, permissive=653, other=1091
horse         :   yes=9717 (65.4%), no=4824, permissive=90, unknown=78, other=146
wheelchair    :   yes=5019 (79.1%), no=1071, limited=235, designated=17, other=4
motorcycle    :   yes=3508 (65.7%), no=1774, permissive=30, destination=21, other=9
motorcar      :    no=3508 (91.0%), yes=207, private=86, destination=22, other=33
vehicle       :    no=2861 (81.7%), private=229, yes=221, destination=54, other=135
mofa          :   yes=1960 (93.2%), no=117, designated=16, permissive=4, other=6
moped         :   yes=1789 (89.6%), no=171, designated=27, permissive=2, other=7
bus           :    yes=247 (88.8%), designated=15, no=11, permit=2, other=3
psv           :    yes=184 (86.0%), no=23, designated=5, bus=2
speed_pedelec :    yes=140 (96.6%), designated=4, no=1
hgv           :     no=110 (80.9%), destination=7, delivery=6, permissive=6, other=7
goods         :      no=56 (60.2%), yes=16, destination=8, permissive=5, other=8
agricultural  :     yes=44 (62.9%), no=24, private=2
boat          :      no=53 (100.0%)
taxi          :     yes=21 (55.3%), no=16, designated=1
car           :      no=26 (74.3%), yes=9
dog           :     yes=13 (65.0%), no=4, leashed=3
tourist_bus   :     no=15 (100.0%)

double_tracked_motor_vehicle : no=16 (100.0%)
small_electric_vehicle : yes=12 (85.7%), dismount=2

Looking at this list maybe also speed_pedelec=yes?

Things that also have been discussed in this context:

  • Even better to map maxwidth:physical, that can be also measured using good aerial photographs
  • “area=no” is currently on the FR, RU, PL, ES wiki’s. I did discuss “area=no” with the person who added this and want to remove it as this is already covered by:
  • 36.2% of the bollards are not part of a highway=* so access rights make no/almost no sense.
  • 32,9% of the bollards is mapped on highway=foot/pedestrian/cycleway and these access rights are more strict or matching these of barrier=bollard
Details on combination with highway=*
631579 bollards, 451270 ways, 206489 bollards without way
58029 bollards op transitions

stand_alone    : 206489   32.7%
footway        : 133531   21.1%
path           :  81705   12.9%
service        :  51460    8.1%
cycleway       :  45625    7.2%
pedestrian     :  28789    4.6%
residential    :  28777    4.6%
no_highway     :  22270    3.5%
track          :  16832    2.7%
living_street  :   7307    1.2%
other          :   8794    1.4%

Now the questions:

Is it good idea to harmonize “implies” for barrier=bollard

  • no, let keep each language independent
  • yes, default access=no + bicycle/foot=yes
  • yes, default access=no + bicycle/foot/mofa/moped=yes
0 voters

Three possible additional tags:

  • horse=yes
  • horse=no
  • no horse=*
0 voters
  • motorcycle=yes
  • motorcycle=no
  • no motorcycle=*
0 voters
Speed pedelec
  • speed_pedelec=yes
  • no speed_pedelec=*
0 voters

The problem with such a special template would be that its content could be changed and this change could cause inconsistencies with the other content of the wiki page without the people who have a bollard page on their watchlist being notified.

BTW, I added horse=yes to the English wiki page at the end of last year (here).

Fair point, yes this can be cause inconsistencies. Let me next days add some text to the Talk page for every language telling about this poll. If the poll ends with a good majority in favor of using a harmonized template updating the page will trigger a notification but I will also update the Talk page about this.

Thanks, Table “Details for language Wiki’s” updated.

9 posts were split to a new topic: What do access tags on barriers mean? Discussion on the Relationship between Parent and Child Tags

2 posts were merged into an existing topic: What do access tags on barriers mean? Relationship between Parent and Child Tags

In general I only tag maxwidth:physical ** on bollards that are affixed to the road *** and the permissions/restriction tagged on the way where I think to remember that the foot/bike passage is default, certainly when looking at Inspector it’s motor_vehicles that are considered no-go.

mofa/moped is I think a Dutch/German thing. Not tagged here.

** Same maxwidth:physical when mapping a bollard row, except when their connected by a chain, certainly a signal that bikes are no go either.

*** Some put bollards to the side of the road (is suspected) to resolve their routing issues. Certainly noticed this curiosity when researching rising bollards mapping and tagging. Certainly seen maproulette followers moving these back onto the road. How else would a navigator ever notice.

mofa/moped is I think a Dutch/German thing. Not tagged here.

There is a traffic sign for them and it is also used sometimes, e.g.