FYI: I just took the liberty of changing the highway=footway definition back to the pre Feb 18th Version.
>-----Original Message----- >From: Andy Townsend [mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com] >Sent: Samstag, 25. Juli 2015 15:25 >To: tagging@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki > >On 25/07/2015 13:43, Hubert wrote: >> Am 24. Juli 2015 um 17:50 schrieb Heiko Eckenreiter >[mailto:heiko.eckenrei...@gmx.net] : >>> Am 24.07.2015 um 17:24 schrieb Hubert: >>>> But only the way with the traffic sign will be tagged with >>>> bicycle=designated, foot=designated using the definition in the >>>> description box >>>> >>>> That is not logical, because both ways are still equally designated >>>> to pedestrians and cyclist in both situations. >>> Today in OSM it's documented, only the ways signposted with a traffic >>> sign should be tagged with *=designated (as described on the cited >>> page access=designated and much more). >> The only wiki page with such a strict formulation I could find is the >"highway=footway" page [1] : "highway=footway is used for signposted >paths designated for pedestrians only. Signposted footpaths are primarily >common in residential areas, but may also exist out-of-town in >recreational environments, parks etc.. ". >> But in this context one must agree that highway=footway is equal to >"highway=path, foot=designated". Also this was only changed recently by >Geow on June 28th. >> Bevor that it read : "highway=footway is mainly used for residential >paths designated for pedestrians only." >> And till Feb 18th :" The tag highway=footway is used for mapping minor >pathways which are used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians." Which is >the definition I prefer. > >I believe that the recent edits to the highway=footway page by Geow >resulted in it not reflecting the usage of the key - it seems to be >telling people how to use a key not documenting how they do use it. I did >raise it with the user concerned (1) (and interestingly other users have >raised similar problems there too) but frankly have no wish to get into a >wiki edit war or even a "discussion" with someone who doesn't even edit >the map (or at least, not in that name) (2). It's also perhaps worth >mentioning that the 18th Feb change (which you - and I - preferred the >previous version to) was made by a wiki editor who's since been blocked >(3). > >I only spotted the wiki change because someone spotted a large number of >footways that I had surveyed being changed into paths without any >information to give a clue as to physical type. We've seen other similar >instances where well-meaning but ignorant wiki edits have resulted in >well-meaning but ignorant "tag correctors" corrupting map data (changing >"wood=deciduous" to "leaf_type=broadleaved" was one). > >Personally, to try and make sense of pages in our wiki I tend to view the >history and look at the "last edit by a sensible person", taking >particular care to read the previous version to anything labelled e.g. >"cleanup". > >Cheers, > >Andy > > >(1) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Geow > >(2) http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Geow > >(3) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xxzme > > >_______________________________________________ >Tagging mailing list >Tagging@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
