<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-AU link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Hi Graeme, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>That’s correct – however the defaults can be set on very specific tags (</span><span style='font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:#202122;background:white'>def:highway=footway;access:bicycle=no) </span><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>and if absolutely necessary even down to within a single park/reserve/area/track rather than a blanket ruling. It would get very fiddly at that degree of detail.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>That’s why my initial enquiry was very specific about ‘tracks for exclusive use by walkers’ as I knew that it quickly gets murky when you start and get into bikes, horse, 4WD’s etc, let alone ebike and escooters (don’t even go there!!) </span><span style='font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>😊</span><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Cheers - Phil<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US> Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1@gmail.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, 4 February 2022 10:06 AM<br><b>To:</b> osm.talk-au@thorsten.engler.id.au<br><b>Cc:</b> OSM-Au <talk-au@openstreetmap.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br clear=all><o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 at 19:32, <<a href="mailto:osm.talk-au@thorsten.engler.id.au">osm.talk-au@thorsten.engler.id.au</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I assume these National parks where different rules are in effect have a boundary relation.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>In which case it would be possible to either:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'> <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>a) tag a def: directly on that boundary relation with the rules that apply<br>or (maybe better in this case)<br>b) create a type=defaults relation “Tasmania National Parks Defaults” with all the defaults that apply in national parks, then add that relation to any national park boundary relation where it applies as member with the role of defaults<br><br>(b) is basically following the defaults proposal exactly, and allows to define the defaults once and the re-use them for all national parks.<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>A problem with that would be that in a number of cases that I know of, you can ride a bike along the roads <i>into</i> the National Park, but you can't then take your bike onto the walking tracks, so a Park-wide default may not work?<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Graeme<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>