Talk:Tag:barrier=wicket gate

Wicket gate integrated into a larger gate

In practice, a wicket gate (small pedestrian gate) is often physically integrated into a larger vehicle gate. In OpenStreetMap this situation is commonly represented by a single node on the barrier line.

However, it is currently impossible to tag both barrier=gate and barrier=wicket_gate on the same element. This leads to two recurring problems:

1. The pedestrian wicket gate exists, but the footway is not mapped separately, so there is no distinct element where barrier=wicket_gate could be applied.
2. Access and locking properties may differ between the main gate and the wicket gate, but current tagging does not allow expressing this distinction on a single node.

Proposed tagging

To describe a pedestrian wicket gate integrated into a larger vehicle gate without redefining the main barrier type, an additional presence tag can be used:

barrier=gate wicket_gate=yes

This preserves the primary function of the barrier as a vehicle gate while explicitly stating that a pedestrian wicket gate is also present, even when both share the same node.

Access and locking tags

When a wicket gate is integrated into a main gate, generic access tags such as:

access=private locked=yes

may become ambiguous, as they could apply only to the main gate, while the wicket gate may have different rules.

To avoid ambiguity, access-related tags can be scoped explicitly to the relevant gate type:

gate:access=private gate:locked=yes

wicket_gate:access=permissive wicket_gate:locked=no

This allows correct and unambiguous tagging of situations where:

• the vehicle gate is locked but the wicket gate is unlocked,
• wicket gare access differs from vehicle access through a gate,
• or both elements have independent access or locking rules.
• avoids artificial node splitting

I don't see necessity of wicket_gate=* (and other barrier=*_gate ). Especially here, "Note that barrier=gate is widely used to map also wicket gates, as it sometimes isn't really clear which is which.", and " It may also be a stand-alone gate that provides convenient secondary access, for example to the rear of a walled park or garden." ( entrance=secondary ? ), meaning conflicting definitions and uses.
It only increased sharply from 1.5k in 2022, after iD added it https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/pull/506
Seems mass added in 2014, and remained stagnant at ~300 until 2019 https://taghistory.raifer.tech/?#***/barrier/wicket_gate
I would simply use eg gate=wicket , gate:wicket=yes ( gate:type=* is another mess)
But is your question not motor_vehicle=private + foot=permissive ?
—— Kovposch (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2025 (UTC)