... Unless you have access to non-copyright information on legal status and this is reasonably available in the public domain in England and Wales ... So I do add legal status BUT using a designation= tag so that it does not get confused with highway=, surface=, tracktype= etc.
I would avoid highway=path so far as possible and give preference to highway=footway / cycleway / track etc. unless the path on the ground was an ill-defined informal track with unknown (or no) legal status. This provides more information. Mike Harris > -----Original Message----- > From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org > [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Roy Wallace > Sent: 07 December 2009 21:48 > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no > > 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
