[OSM-newbies] Implicit properties

[Pieren]

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Someoneelse <lists at mail.atownsend.org.uk>wrote:

> > How do I bring such a feature to the attention of the Potlatch or JOSM
> developers?
>
> There's a bug/feature request tracking system here:
> http://trac.openstreetmap.org
>
>
>
This is a an old hot topic in OSM. It should not be discussed on the newbie
list, neither it can be fixed by trac enhancement requests.
I think the person who said that bicycle=no for highway=footway is refering
to this page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions

altough in many countries it could be the opposite (that's probably why the
wiki about footway does not say anything about that). This depends on the
"footway vs path" definition and acceptance in the different communities
because some group consider "footway" as designated for pedestrians only and
"path" as soon as there is a multi-usage where another group consider "path"
for country side trails and "footway" for any urban pathways.
A similar issue is the default access of pedestrians over cycleways, etc.
Some implicite properties seem obvious for everyone (e.g. foot=no with
highway=motorway), others have a local consensus, many are unclear. Another
group is thinking that all attributes should be always explicitely set to
remove all these ambiguities but that could lead to a long, long list of
attributes, probably too long for most of the contributors.

Pieren
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/newbies/attachments/20100324/ec13756c/attachment.html>