That a path is in common use by bicycles is often pretty easy to establish (even in places with much less bike traffic than round here), with no real question that re-survey would see similar tyre-tracks. The problem is not verifiability, it's how you record what you can see.
Richard On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > > > > Fortunately, you're not mapping for a router. If there's no verifiable > > data, you shouldn't map anything at all. I guess "unknown" would also be > > acceptable, though. > > I think this is an important point. It becomes a problem when people > try to map the *law*, because legal status is often difficult to > verify - e.g. you can't see it! > > I tend to only map legal status when it is directly marked by signage > on the ground - at least you can see signs (i.e. their existence is > verifiable). So if there's a sign with a bicycle on it and a "no > pedestrians" sign, that should give enough confidence to go with > highway=cycleway, etc. > > If there's no signage, stick with highway=path, surface=*, width=* - > these are verifiable without sifting through a law book. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
