On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> In Australia, we ARE tagging paths generally with "unknown (or no) >> legal status". Should we *guess* the legal status and use >> footway/cycleway etc., or use highway=path + surface + width? >> > > Or ignore the legal status entirely and map on the basis of common practice.
Firstly, you'd have to create a new tag, say, "common_practice=bicycle;foot". Bicycle=yes/no is already in use and it refers to legal status. (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access) > Why was "legal status" chosen as the most important attribute to map? Surely > what matters most is whether or not you should use a certain path, > regardless of what the "legal status" is. I don't know why it was chosen, but that is currently what "yes/no" refers to. For obvious reasons, it's not a good idea to use a well-established tag with two different meanings simultaneously. Secondly, "whether or not you should use a certain path" is not clearly defined, and is not verifiable. What exactly do you mean by "should"? Does this refer to people in wheelchairs, or not? In the rain, or not? Etc., Etc., Etc. I agree with your position that legal status is not really what we should mapping. But you need to come up with *verifiable* alternatives. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
