richard.mann.westoxford at googlemail.com
Mon Dec 7 22:29:38 GMT 2009
That a path is in common use by bicycles is often pretty easy to establish
(even in places with much less bike traffic than round here), with no real
question that re-survey would see similar tyre-tracks. The problem is not
verifiability, it's how you record what you can see.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Fortunately, you're not mapping for a router. If there's no verifiable
> > data, you shouldn't map anything at all. I guess "unknown" would also be
> > acceptable, though.
> I think this is an important point. It becomes a problem when people
> try to map the *law*, because legal status is often difficult to
> verify - e.g. you can't see it!
> I tend to only map legal status when it is directly marked by signage
> on the ground - at least you can see signs (i.e. their existence is
> verifiable). So if there's a sign with a bicycle on it and a "no
> pedestrians" sign, that should give enough confidence to go with
> highway=cycleway, etc.
> If there's no signage, stick with highway=path, surface=*, width=* -
> these are verifiable without sifting through a law book.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging