<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Am 21.05.2011 11:45, schrieb Ben Robbins:
<blockquote cite="mid:BLU159-w381B8796FA26E92557ADA8CF700@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
Simon: To put it simply. There is 'can' and there is 'may'.
Places one 'can' go, and places one 'may'. <br>
<br>
I can walk across my neighbours lawn, but I may not. I may choose
to take a footway where I 'can' walk on a track, then take another
footway where i 'may' walk where i 'can' on a path. In OSM track
and footway can't coexsist. <br>
<br>
</blockquote>
That was really already clear to me. I was just confused by your use
of "access track" since afaik "track" doesn't actually correspond to
any specific right of way classification in the UK, so really is
more of a physical or/and usage classification in any case (see the
German version of the highway=track page in the wiki).<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:BLU159-w381B8796FA26E92557ADA8CF700@phx.gbl"
type="cite">The 'highways' key has a mix of these as well as tags
that state both, neither or something completely different.
Likewise for rendering.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Woudn't it be best simply to ignore that historically the values for
some of the highway tags originated in the UK right of way system
and (for the UK) rely on the designation tag to map the row status?
In the end that is what the overwhelming majority of OSM outside of
the UK has to do anyway.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:BLU159-w381B8796FA26E92557ADA8CF700@phx.gbl"
type="cite">Hope that makes sense.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well as much as anything in the UK makes any sense :-)<br>
<br>
SImon<br>
</body>
</html>