how to tag 'automatic gate' ?

how to tag an automatic gate(not a ‘lift-gate’ ;, that only can be operated by mobile(gsm) by the residents of that particular street, to reduce cut-through traffic ? ;

If there is a passage for pedestrians, than vehicle=private
If there is also a passage for bicycles, than motor_vehicle=private

I would explicitly tag the permissions that allow access. Normally a barrier is already access=no (similar to e.g. the presets in JOSM for bollard)
so foot=yes, bicycle=yes, moped_A=yes, horse=yes (*) on the barrier=gate-node. The node should go on the road.

(*) at least that is what I deduce from the extra path next to the gate, maybe traffic signs allow more/less types of ‘vehicles’

What’s the point of tagging access=no, and then using 1000 and 1 tag for exceptions, if motor_vehicle=private or motor_vehicle=no do the trick?

The wiki page for barrier states that a barrier implies access=no.

So when you tag a barrier with vehicle=private, it still has “no” for foot, etc…

You could also tag it with access=yes, (motor_)vehicle=private to avoid adding too much tags.

For Belgium you should still add moped_A=yes in case you use motor_vehicle=private

The difficulty with above is that it doesn’t distinguish between the fact that it acts as an entrance for pedestrians, so no real barrier at all, and a gate for vehicles. An entrance can still have access restrictions - just no technical enforcement of them.

(However, I wonder if the original question was about he automation, rather than the access.)

If you want to distinguish between the two “access paths”, you can draw 2 ways. One for the cars with the barrier and one without the barrier for pedestrians, cyclist, etc.

You are probably right about the automation, but barrier=gate is good enough. The wiki page reads "An entrance that can be opened or closed to get through the barrier. " One could add a description with the details about “an automatic barrier that allows access via smartphone to local traffic”

I don’t like micro-mapping such constructs, becaus the transition from normal to micromapping always generates artefacts (e.g. footpaths heading away from the carriageway, when they are really just continuations of ones pararallel to the carriageway). On the other hand, nearly all traffic calming gates have unresticted bypass for pedestrians.

But how would you then indicate that pedestrians do not have to pass the gate and cars have to ?
Is there a tag that indicates “gate_only_for_motorized_vehicles” ?

I usually do not split the way, only when there are 2 different barriers, e.g. a kissing gate for pedestrians and a cattle grid for vehicles. It’s important to know that pedestrians can travel without passing the cattle grid. At least when you have dogs with you.

Yes. I think I am sugesting that the tagging for barriers is not compatible with many real life barirers without the use of micro-mapping, so there really needs to be tags that indicate that the barrier doesn’t exist at all for some classes of user.