Mike Harris
> -----Original Message----- > From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org > [mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Anthony > Sent: 14 December 2009 14:47 > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without > explicit knowledgeofthe law? > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Mike Harris > <mik...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > I would not at this stage > support the re-invention of a meaning for highway=path > that - although > perhaps reflecting the purpose for which it was > originally intended (cf. > Frederik's message - apparently a 'non-specific or > multiuse path') differs > from the way it seems to being used 90% of the time (an > ill-defined and not > legally designated hiking path 'not otherwise > specified' and probably > unsuitable for any traffic other than pedestrian). > > > Well, first of all, what you describe would still be > correctly labeled as a "path". However, I have to really > doubt that 90% of ways tagged with path are "probably > unsuitable for any traffic other than pedestrian". Maybe 90% > are unpaved, but unpaved does not mean "unsuitable for any > traffic other than pedestrian". And there's already a tag > for surface=paved/unpaved. That's my problem with the > current usage. We shouldn't have a tag for surface=unpaved > and a second tag for highway=surface_probably_unpaved. > 100% of the paths I tag as highway=path are definitely impossible for anything other than pedestrians - perhaps I'm in a more rural area than you? E.g. undefined paths across fields interrupted by gates, stiles, etc. - or upland / mountain hiking trails across moorland / bog / scree / rocks. On these the surface changes so often with the terrain that the surface= tag, which I use widely in other circumstances, is not very helpful. > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Richard Mann > <richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > highway=path for rough paths > highway=footway for paved paths > > > Can someone at least write a bot to go around changing path > to footway or vice-versa if the surface=* doesn't match? Or > (and I know this is never going to happen), put some code on > the servers to disallow highway=path + surface=paved and > highway=footway + surface=unpaved? Although I don't necessarily disagree with Richard, I suspect that I use =footway more and =path less than he implies. Neither is right or wrong - just praxis. But I don't think we should start sending bots around while the whole area is still debated so much - just look at the length of this thread and all the others that precede it! And the complexity of the implied debate on the consolidation page on the wiki. > bicycle=yes if bikes are definitely allowed, and > unlikely to be revoked > bicycle=permissive if it looks like the land is private > and someone could attempt to ban cycling in future > > > What about bicycle=no? Is that the default? If so, I have > to object. The default needs to be bicycle=unknown, or else > it needs to be jurisdiction specific. > > > > highway=cycleway only used for well-engineered & > public/permanant cycle tracks (ie could you safely do 20kph on it) > > > > This could work too, with perhaps a jurisdiction-specific > definition only for cycleway. My only two (relatively small) > problems are 1) something needs to be done quickly about > inconsistent data like bicycle=path + > surface=concrete/paved/asphalt/etc or bicycle=footway + > surface=grass/ground/sand/unpaved/etc, before it gets too out > of hand. And 2) you just can't make the default bicycle=no. > > Oh yeah, and "rough" should be "unpaved". Unpaved is not necessarily rough - I know of plenty of cycleways / footways / paths / tracks that have a smooth compacted gravel surface that I would regards as unpaved but allows cycling at well over 20 kph (usually without a bell and at great peril to walkers - only kidding bike-guys - well almost only ... ) > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.716 / Virus Database: 270.14.107/2564 - Release > Date: 12/14/09 07:37:00 > > > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
