On 11/04/2019 17:13, Volker Schmidt wrote:


On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 17:50, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org <mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org>> wrote:

    It's recommended that bicycle and foot get tagged explicitly where
    there's no obvious global default (like footway, path, cycleway
    and motorway).

Where can I find this recommendation ?
I had found only these default access tables: Default-Access-Restriction for all countries <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions>.. And these are not even approved.

I'd treat those with a very big pinch of salt, if the "United Kingdom" ones are anything to go by.  Problems with the UK table include:

 * No allowance for the "just not mapped yet" case - a footpath on
   private land may very well be private.  Paths mapped from imagery
   only likely won't have access tags because the mapper simply doesn't
   know.
 * "track" and "service" are missing altogether.
 * The UK has three different legal systems, not one.  In the main
   table Scotland (not for the first time) has been ignored.
 * In England and Wales, no distinction between "legal right of way in
   " and "you're allowed to, but no legal right of way" (English laws
   are weird).
 * No mention of CROW Act land (another odd legal case).

However it does sound like you (Volker) agree with Paul (and I) here - it's good to explicitly use access tags if it's not obvious.

It'd be good to get back to having access tags just describing legal access, but "highway=path" is a problem here - where used, it needs what what normally be an access tag to say what sort of path it is, rather than other modifiers (width, surface, tracktype, etc.)

Best Regards,

Andy

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Reply via email to