<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18702"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=218091918-30042009><FONT color=#0000ff
size=2 face=Arial>I could more or less go with this too - but perhaps only if we
could adopt more widely the use of designation= (or designated= - see earlier
post!) to allow the definition of legal status (mostly in the UK admittedly) for
those of us who are "public rights of way" workers. Is there a case for adding
highway=track to the mix? Personally I find it useful to use highway=track for
ways that are (mostly) not paved but physically wide enough for four-wheeled
traffic - regardless of whether the designation would be as a public footpath,
public bridleway or whatever; tracktype= can be added to further define surface
and foot/bicycle/horse/etc. = can also be added. I would also think that a
clear-cut highway=cycleway would automatically take priority over highway=track
as it is more informative. By the same token I find it quite useful to use
highway=path for a way that it is not wide enough for four-wheel traffic, is not
a 'designated' public right of way or permissive path and is rural (as
highway=footway seems a bit strange in these cases but fine in an urban
context).</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Magneto>Mike Harris</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV dir=ltr lang=en-us class=OutlookMessageHeader align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT size=2 face=Tahoma><B>From:</B> Richard Mann
[mailto:richard.mann.westoxford@googlemail.com] <BR><B>Sent:</B> 30 April 2009
15:10<BR><B>To:</B> talk@openstreetmap.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [OSM-talk]
Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map
layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used (for "raw"
paths as you describe them). The dark grey dashed lines in Mapnik seem a good
starting point. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If "path" was rendered then the problem kinda goes away - use cycleway
for good ways that are OK to cycle on, footway for good ways that are not OK
to cycle on, and path for raw ways where access rights are unclear. That
probably covers the bulk of situations.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Richard<BR></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Jacek Konieczny <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:jajcus@jajcus.net">jajcus@jajcus.net</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV class=im>On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini
wrote:<BR>> If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why
don't you<BR>> tag them both as designated?<BR>> highway=path
foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway<BR>> +bicycle=designated
or cycleway+foot=desiganted)<BR><BR></DIV>I do that, when the paths are
designated for both. I use<BR>'cycleway+foot=designated' as those were
usually built with bicycles in<BR>mind and I prefer using "path" for the
more 'raw', usually unpaved<BR>paths, like in a forest. But there are
foot paths which are not<BR>designated by bicycles, but bicycles are allowed
there.<BR><BR>The problem is that footway is always rendered the same, not
matter if<BR>it is also tagged bicycle=yes or bicycle=designated (though I
am not<BR>sure about the latter), which is not a problem on a generic road
map,<BR>but is quite a problem for cycle/tourist maps. So, I guess, this
thread<BR>is about a feature request for renderers. Nothing to fight about
:)<BR>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5><BR>Greets,<BR>
Jacek<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>talk mailing
list<BR><A
href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</A><BR><A
href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk"
target=_blank>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</A><BR></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>