mikh43 at googlemail.com
Tue Dec 8 08:12:20 GMT 2009
I wouldn't try to argue whether legal status is a more or less important
attribute than any other. However, where known, it is a useful piece of
information. In countries that do not have 'right to roam' and where it is
therefore illegal (at least a trespass) to walk on a path across private
land unless it is legally designated as a 'public footpath' it is useful for
a walker to know whether or not (s)he has any right to be there - for
example if challenged. So in such countries the legal status is as much a
part of "whether you should use a certain path" (to quote your words) as the
Some people may choose to ignore the legal status ... but that is a personal
decision and other people might at least like to know when they are doing
From: tagging-bounces at openstreetmap.org
[mailto:tagging-bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bennett
Sent: 08 December 2009 00:43
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
In Australia, we ARE tagging paths generally with "unknown (or no)
legal status". Should we *guess* the legal status and use
footway/cycleway etc., or use highway=path + surface + width?
Or ignore the legal status entirely and map on the basis of common practice.
Why was "legal status" chosen as the most important attribute to map? Surely
what matters most is whether or not you should use a certain path,
regardless of what the "legal status" is.
(Hopefully I'll find some example where it's "illegal" to walk/ride
somewhere, but everyone does it.)
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.710 / Virus Database: 270.14.98/2551 - Release Date: 12/07/09
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging