<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 04/05/2011 13:22, Peter Oliver wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:alpine.LFD.2.02.1105041319250.3238@froglet.home.mavit.org.uk"
type="cite">• There's an "old" method of tagging ways suitable for
pedestrians, and a "new" method.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'd ignore the "new" method as "documented" there. It was added by
a wikifiddler a couple of months ago and bears no resemblance to
common usage in the UK. The huge table that was added also makes
the page pretty much illegible. <br>
<br>
The "new" method is not "wrong", but doesn't add any more
information and involves more typing.<font face="Default Sans
Serif,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" size="2"> Personally,
I'll record new footpaths as highway=footway, and if someone
already mapped one as highway=path, foot=blah I'll leave it at
that. Life's too short for edit wars.<br>
<br>
</font>As well as echoing what other people have said (e.g.
recording <font face="Default Sans
Serif,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif" size="2">designation=public_footpath
if there's a sign) what I would add is to see please get mapping!
Don't worry about getting 100% of the detail at the first attempt
(if someone spots later that something was actually a bridleway
and not just a footpath they can change it).<br>
<br>
</font>Cheers,<br>
Andy<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>