<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Meaning of verbs<br><div><div>Am 02.01.2015 um 23:44 schrieb <a href="mailto:tagging-request@openstreetmap.org">tagging-request@openstreetmap.org</a>:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">"It is also possible to use {{Tag|sidewalk|right}}/*=left [on<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">highway=cycleway] to indicate which side of the segregated path<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">pedestrians should walk on (where right/left is relative to the way's<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">direction)."<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">It was originally contributed by ulamm and modified by RobJN after a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">short discussion (<a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:RobJN">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:RobJN</a>).<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">But this is the opposite of what is written on<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks</a><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">"The inclusion of sidewalk information makes it easier to provide<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">effective pedestrian routing, and in particular good narrative<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">descriptions of pedestrian routes along motorised roads. The sidewalk<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">tag is not needed on non-motorised thoroughfares, for example<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">highway=footway/cycleway/path/brideway/track. "<br></blockquote>• "not needed" is not the same as "must not be needed"<br>• The combination of highway=cycleway with sidewak=right or *=left needs less tags<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>than the conventional combination of highway=path or highway=cycleway with biycyle=designated + foot=designated + segregated=yes.<br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I think there better solutions to the problem than ulamm's.<br></blockquote>Tell us a solution that describes the existence of a cycletrack and a parallel footway without more tags and without any loss of exactness!<br><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">If there are no further arguments, I will remove the sentence from the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">first citation. What is your opinion on that?<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Cheers<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Tobias<br></blockquote></div></span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></blockquote>In my answer on Tobias unfortunately I followed his mistake, half way.</div><div><br></div><div>He had not only commixed a statement with an order, he had also read "to need" as "to use".</div><div><br></div><div>Now I tell it more precisely: </div><div>"is not needed on non-motorized thoroughfares" means "on non-motorized thoroughfares it <b>can</b> be described without that tag",</div><div>but it does not mean "on non-motorized thoroughfares it <b>must</b> be described without that tag".</div><div><br></div><div>Yours', Ulrich</div><br></body></html>