<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Apr 8, 2021, 10:39 by f@zz.de:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 07:29:27AM +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote:<br></div><blockquote><div>Zeke Farwell wrote:<br></div><div>> Here is the latest draft. Please let me know what you think.<br></div><div><br></div><div>This is generally pretty good - well done.<br></div><div><br></div><div>I agree with Martin that =footway, =cycleway and =bridleway should be<br></div><div>mentioned in preference to =pedestrian. These tags are standard<br></div><div>tagging for many multi-use trails. highway=path is problematic as a<br></div><div>bare tag because you can't infer meaning for access or quality.<br></div><div><br></div><div>In the 'Access' section, I'd upgrade "adding explicit access tags is<br></div><div>helpful" to "...is strongly recommended". Again, highway=track without<br></div><div>access tags is problematic and there have been very many cases where<br></div><div>renderers/routers have unwittingly directed people across private<br></div><div>land, sometimes ending up with landowner complaints to the DWG. You<br></div><div>point to the "country-specific restrictions" page, but in fact this<br></div><div>omits highway=track for many countries (such as the UK and USA).<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>But we do agree that access tags are only applicable where explicitly <br></div><div>posted right? <br></div></blockquote><div>Do you consider closed gate as "explicitly posted"?<br></div><div><br></div><div>What about sign on entrance to national part "leaving trails is not allowed<br></div><div>without permission from national park management"?<br></div> </body>
</html>