[OSM-talk] tagging trailblazes / marked paths
hawke at hawkesnest.net
Tue Aug 5 22:32:06 BST 2008
Jon Burgess wrote:
> The only thing I see an issue with is introducing the specific
> 'highway=path' tag. I see this as an unnecessary complication.
I guess it's a matter of perspective. I see it as a simplification:
instead of having three categories for one physical feature (and still
needing to twist reality in order to fit them in
(highway=footway+foot=no+ski=yes, anyone?) you have only one category.
>>From a quick glance at the examples given I think they are all covered
> with combinations of highway=cycleway|footway|track with the other tags
Except the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth, and tenth.
> you propose like foot=y/n, motorcar=y/n or tracktype=gradeN etc.
I propose none of those tags. the first two are part of the initial
revision of access=*, and the last I do not propose nor agree with.
> really don't see what highway=path adds.
To quote the wiki page: "A generic path. Either not intended for any
particular use, or intended for several different uses." For the nth
time, bridleway/cycleway/footway do not cover these. You can look at
the list of path examples referred to above to see ones which are not
covered. The only one of them which might be is the fifth, and that one
is simply not /adequately/ covered.
> The one exception is for
> snowmobile, for that I'd suggest possibly adding highway=snowmobile
And three kinds of ski and motorcycle. And I'm sure there's some modes
of transport that we're missing. Adding them all as highway values is
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
More information about the talk