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
