mikh43 at googlemail.com
Thu Dec 10 16:31:26 GMT 2009
From: tagging-bounces at openstreetmap.org
[mailto:tagging-bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of James Livingston
Sent: 10 December 2009 11:01
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=no
On 09/12/2009, at 3:30 AM, Mike Harris wrote:
Personally - and I'm probably wrong! - I had always thought that foot /
bicycle = yes / no etc. did not say anything one way or the other about
formal legal status (hence leaving this to designation= ) but merely whether
the evidence on the ground (whether signage - which may or may not have
strictly legal significance - or physical condition or even local custom)
suggested that the way was appropriate for the user group concerned.
I don't think there is really a right an a wrong here, but I use those tags
in the completely opposite way - foot/bicycle=yes meaning you are legally
allowed to go there, and *=designated/designation=* meaning there is a sign.
[MRH] Fair comment ... just goes to show that practice differs widely. I
have tried to distinguish between designated=* (which I avoid as I'm not at
all clear what it means) and designation=* which I use for legal designation
in the local jurisdiction e.g. (in England) public_footpath,
public_bridleway, restricted_byway etc. However, if -as several responses
have suggested, the best way of looking at foot/bicycle=yes/no etc. is to
regard them as spinning off from access= then your approach of giving them
legal significance could follow logically - without conflict to the more
precise definition given by my use of the designation=* tag (or equivalent
usage in other jurisdictions).
The big problem with sorting this mess out is all the existing data used
different ways. I think the only way to handle it would be to split it into
two or more tags, and deprecate the old one.
[MRH] +1!! I think this is probably the best long-term approach. The problem
-as shown by previous threads on this and related topics - is that in the
free-form world of OSM there is no-one really able and willing to take on
the task of deciding how to split, what into, and what to deprecate ...
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.710 / Virus Database: 270.14.100/2554 - Release Date: 12/09/09
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging