> On Aug 4, 2015, at 12:41 AM, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The problem is that distinction of highway=path and highway=footway is
> meaningless,
I have a ton of sidewalks to map and a ton of dirt trails in the mountains
informal cut-throughs in the grass to map. the distinction is very clear to
me.
Especially in a country where there are no bridleways (horse-riding for
recreation is almost non-existant) and the land is covered with concrete and
asphalt sidewalks.
I know that this is pertinent only to my mapping area - but the argument over
the footpath and path about highest usage is not necessary - Go by built
conditions.
a concrete sidewalk, a concrete walkway in a park, an asphalt path along a
river, a walkway through a parking lot to get to a mall entrance, a pedestrian
footbridge over a river - all are built to the same usage assumptions, and
people seeing the red dots can assume they can walk leaisurely without watching
their feet or worry about mud.
a dirt path through a forest, a narrow trail along a fence to cut around a
field, an informal path next to a road connecting to separate sidewalk segments
- all of these too have the same expectations of conditions.
I have no issues with their distinction here. The issues arise in more
complicated places. Take the basis of these two tags and figure out a solution
based on the idea of built condition and expected usage, and most of these
issues will disappear. Most people can’t ride a horse down a sidewalk. Most
people cant take a wheelchair up a mountain trail. and most people shouldn’t
drive a car down a cycleway or through a mall.
it’s only the edge cases that is making this so difficult. the vast majority of
trails and footpaths fit neatly into the two categories above.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
