<!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 6.00.6000.16850" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=453323612-11062009><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Absolutely - this is exactly the sort of situation that the
proposal would resolve and there are many others.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Magneto color=#0000ff size=2>Mike Harris</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </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> Kevin Peat [mailto:kevin@kevinpeat.com]
<BR><B>Sent:</B> 11 June 2009 10:08<BR><B>To:</B> Paul Johnson;
talk@openstreetmap.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature
Proposal - RFC - Designation<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>I'm in favour. I think separating legal status from the
highway tag is a good thing in general.<BR><BR>Currently with bridleways
tagged as highway=bridleway you have no idea what kind of actual way you are
dealing with. Where I live (Devon) there are a lot of bridleways, some
on wide tracks and some on singletrack paths. I also know of one
bridleway near me that runs up the driveway of a country house.<BR><BR>It
would be nice to be able to differentiate that with:<BR><BR>
highway=footway designation=bridleway<BR> highway=track
designation=bridleway<BR> highway=service
designation=bridleway<BR><BR>Rather than the current situation where either
the type of way or the legal status is lost.<BR><BR>Kevin<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Paul Johnson <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:baloo@ursamundi.org">baloo@ursamundi.org</A>></SPAN>
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=h5>Richard Mann wrote:<BR>> This is a request for comments on
the proposal for a new<BR>> Key:designation. Hopefully it's had it's
rough edges removed already,<BR>> but I would appreciate your
comments.<BR>><BR>> Richard<BR>><BR>> <A
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation"
target=_blank>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation</A><BR><BR></DIV></DIV>I'm
opposed; this seems like a duplication of effort for what route<BR>relations
are currently for, and creates redundancy and overlap in scope<BR>with the
service= and highway= tags. As such, this really sounds like a<BR>step
in the wrong direction. Perhaps expanding the service= tags
and<BR>getting the mapnik and osmarender we use on the slippymap to
render<BR>these things instead of route tags on the underlying ways when
the<BR>underlying way is a member of a route=road relation.<BR><BR>The
cyclemap is getting this right; but strangely, none of the
other<BR>renderers. And it's not like it would be that hard to get
that fixed;<BR>someone's already rendering road relations complete with
correct highway<BR>badges already.<BR><BR><A
href="http://weait.com/maps/?zoom=11&lat=43.14469&lon=-79.17383&layers=0B0"
target=_blank>http://weait.com/maps/?zoom=11&lat=43.14469&lon=-79.17383&layers=0B0</A><BR><BR><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><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>