<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<pre>>I wonder that noone, so far, mentioned that we had similar discussions
>on talk-de.
>Please, do not discuss only in GB.
>
>The sitiuation is even a bit more complicated because of law (especially
>for bikes) and we have foot/bicycle=official, too.
>
>I stoped using footway or cycleway at all.
>
>And do not forget emergencies which could use a track but not a path.
>
>Thanks
>colliar<br><br></pre>Well in a nutshell, this is the debate, and how every ML conversation on the matter ends up: http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g226/ben_robbins_/Tracks-1.png?t=1306366810<br><br>It starts in the 'blue' section. It then goes in circles for the best part, or it all ends with the renderer.<br><br>Either of the 3 points where I have put an exclamation mark (but not the bottom right one) would deal with the problem I think you have described. <br>(Ignore the other one, it was for something else)<br><br>It's rather amazing the complexity of something so simple!<br><br>---<br><br>So really, going along the lines of 'highway=track; designation=xyz' it just about works, but 3 issues remain. <br><br>1) It doesn't render correctly/at all.<br>2) The assumed access rights of highway=track in a route planner are not clear, and/or a problem as shown in diagram.<br>3) The need for Highway=byway/bridleway/footway...is there one; again shown in diagram.<br><br>Any definite answers or advice on these points from anyone?<br><br>cheers,<br>Ben<br><br> </body>
</html>