Because it’s tied shut with twine, nobody’s opening this anytime soon. But it’s still a useful access point, because the gate is significantly easier to hop over than the wire fences either side of it.
How should I be tagging this? It’s not quite locked=yes, as it’s not locked per se, and the access family of tags doesn’t feel appropriate, as there are no legal restrictions involved (this is Scotland, so right to roam applies).
Meh, locked=yes sounds fine to me. It’s secured shut such that nobody but the owner is supposed to be allowed to open it. And as it looks like you may have already done, adding a note= and/or description= with more specifics helps for those things that tags data consumers might read don’t completely capture. And maybe you could also upload the images to Wikimedia Commons or the like (assuming they’re your own pictures) and add a tag referencing that too.
Not currently in use, but could be reinstated easily
The gate is not currently in use as a gate as it’s fixed shut, but could easily be reinstated by cutting the twine.
That said I’m not sure this would be the best tag to use, unless the gate is worn out so much that it’s physically stuck.
locked=* was meant to mean it needs a key, access card, pin code or biometrics etc. to unlock it, but I hadn’t really thought of a case where the gate is physically secured shut in a way that you can’t unlock it without physically breaking it. But I guess it could apply in this case too since it’s not intended for anyone to easily open the gate, so it functions as a locked gate.
I wouldn’t do disused:barrier=* even if gate was completely degraded to the point of being physically unable to move, as it is still a barrier, just perhaps not a “gate”[1]. Or if I did use disused:barrier=gate, I’d also add barrier=yes (and a description=* and a panoramax=*) to indicate you shall not pass there.
Yes, locked=yes is fine by me too.
Sure, someone intending to gain access regardless of restrictions could undo (or cut) the knot; but someone intending to gain access regardless of restrictions could also lockpick (or smash) the lock, or hack the pin code etc. So, my vote goes to duck tagging here.
and we don’t have barrier=disused:gate type of tagging, which would be correct ↩︎
If it’s permanently fixed in place, it could be tagged as barrier=fence (together with disused:barrier=gateand a note or description), as that’s what it is for practical purposes.
In another topic I earned some laughs (I considered them as a positive emoticon) when I wrote, I’d rather jump the gate than take a one hour detour. In yet another topic I guess I managed somebody to make barrier=fence on a node a valid tag in the Wiki documentary.
If I were to happen on that very location pictured above, and knew, that I was legally allowed to open the gate and walk through, maybe I would open the knot and replace it with something easier, like what is used to tie shoe laces, just lacking the proper English term.
It has been suggested above already for this case of “disused gate becoming basically a fence”
Which one? I heard good things about Ian’s knot. While bunny ears might be bad for using on actual laces, for such breaking&entering acts it might make sense.
