On 3/08/2015 8:58 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2015, geow wrote:
Richard Z. wrote
...
I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a
variant
of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and vehicles
unless
otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways.
...
@Richard - I wouldn't even dream of that ;-) Actually - do we really need 5
or even 6 highway types for non motorized traffic?
Wouldn't it be better to use the universal and compatible "highway=path"
along with specific and unmistakable attributes for physical and access
properties. That way we could replace all highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway
keys.
The mess as you described it, was partly caused by mixing physical tags and
assumed access-restrictions in these traditional keys.
Many mappers don't want to input all those types using many keys because
of increased effort that slows down useful mapping. They could all could
go directly into highway=* instead to make it less effort to input the
same amount of information (1 key vs 2-4+?).
And that leads to the mess 'we' have.
Taking this to an extreme there would be some 6(access)*6(surface)*6(set
widths) of highway=path/footway (216 types)
each with an individual tag
just so some mappers would not be put to the trouble of entering the data!
Oh .. and I have left off the cycleway/bridle way too so add another 3!
Personally I am for the amalgamation of highway=path/footway.
Not using the sub tag for detail ... is like using shop=yes ... you simply mark
the presence of something and leave the detail for someone who cares.
Most who don't use the sub tags are probably not correctly suing path/footway
either.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
