<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16809" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=609473716-26032009>Thanks Richard - my oops!</SPAN></FONT></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Richard Mann
[mailto:richard.mann.westoxford@googlemail.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> 26 March 2009
15:37<BR><B>To:</B> Mike Harris<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [OSM-talk]
highway=cycle&footway<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Oops, slipped off including "talk". I've forwarded my last to the list;
you may like to do so also...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Richard<BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Mike Harris <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:mikh43@googlemail.com">mikh43@googlemail.com</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Richard
- again helpful - after reading your comments I think the main area of
disagreement between Dave and me is the around the use of
highway=path.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I am
sure I have read somewhere (wiki, mailing lists?) a fairly strong plea to
minimise the use of highway=path whenever something more specific (such as
highway=footway) is available? Perhaps someone has a better memory than I
do?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>This is
one of three reasons why I have tended to favour highway=footway for ways
that are clearly unsuitable for more than pedestrian
traffic.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>By
observation of the developing map itself - and also from the mailing lists -
a second reason might be that there seem to be two schools of thought around
the meaning of 'path': those who regard it as something less well-defined on
the ground than a 'footway' and those - apparently like yourself - who see
it as something 'more than just a footway'. </FONT></SPAN><SPAN><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I've taken the middle course of avoiding it
wherever possible -- at least where there is an alternative tag for which
there seems to be more consistency in established practice - and
keeping =path for vague paths that are 'there' but are not public footpaths.
Maybe I'm wrong! But who's right?</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>My third
reason for avoiding highway=path is that someone could walk a route one day
and find that the path has not been reinstated across a ploughed field or a
crop. If this is a public footpath, pressure (and ultimately legal action)
will be used - sooner or later - by the highway authority. The landowner may
then reinstate and the path may become very clear indeed - even a day or two
later. Also, in many cases a farmer is allowed a grace period (conditions
too complex to matter here!) before reinstating. So a judgement
based on lack of reinstatement - as Dave seems to suggest - while
objective, may be very ephemeral - and I'm hoping our maps are of
lasting value!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>As I've
already said, I'm in agreement with Dave on several of his points and am
pretty much in agreement with the points that you are now making (other than
on =path). I would certainly vote against highway=cycle&footway as this
can be done with foot= and bicycle= - as seems usually to be existing
practice. I would also probably vote against highway=cycleway +
cycleway=shared as I can expect arguments galore as to whether it is
highway=cycleway cycleway=shared (cycling viewpoint) or highway=bridleway
and bridleway=shared (equestrian viewpoint) etc. ad
nauseam!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I still
feel that cycleway is only well-defined in a limited set of cases that I
have mentioned earlier (with the usual grey area round the edges! - of the
definition, that is, not the cycleway (:>)) and that beyond these cases
the use of this tag does indeed tend to become somewhat subjective according
as the mapper is primarily a cyclist, walker or horse
rider!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Mike
(Cheshire)</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Richard Mann [mailto:<A
href="mailto:richard.mann.westoxford@googlemail.com"
target=_blank>richard.mann.westoxford@googlemail.com</A>] <BR><B>Sent:</B>
26 March 2009 12:58<BR><B>To:</B> Mike Harris
<DIV class=im><BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [OSM-talk]
highway=cycle&footway<BR></DIV></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Before we all get too depressed, I think I agree with both of you
(Dave / Mike) that any changes to tagging should be backwardly-compatible,
as far as practical (or at least minimise the "wrongness" if the old
tagging is unchanged).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But we also need a scheme that is simple, effective and shows
what's on the ground, not just what's on the sign.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think the nub of it is the tagging of path/bridleway/cycleway. I
think "path" serves a useful function for ways that are more than just
footways, but where usage/access for horses/mtb/bicycles is uncertain. I
think "bridleway" serves a useful function in those countries where access
for horses is well-established (and thereby is becomes a useful shorthand
for highway=path+designation=public_bridleway), but in practice there may
be little to distinguish a bridleway from a path (and there might be sense
in rendering them quite similarly). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Whereas, highway=cycleway is an explicit assertion that the surface
is somewhat better than you might expect on a bridleway/path, without
going into the minefield of the multiple values that might be tagged for
tracktype/surface/smoothness.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I think I'm concluding that highway=cycle&footway is unnecessary;
perhaps highway=cycleway+cycleway=shared would be a better bet (and leave
it to the renderers whether they do anything with that). But if
highway=cycleway is to be used for shared cycleways, then the wiki
definition will need to be more inclusive than currently.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Richard (West
Oxford)</DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>