[Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledgeofthe law?
mikh43 at googlemail.com
Mon Dec 14 16:37:29 GMT 2009
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tagging-bounces at openstreetmap.org
> [mailto:tagging-bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Anthony
> Sent: 14 December 2009 14:47
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without
> explicit knowledgeofthe law?
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Mike Harris
> <mikh43 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I would not at this stage
> support the re-invention of a meaning for highway=path
> that - although
> perhaps reflecting the purpose for which it was
> originally intended (cf.
> Frederik's message - apparently a 'non-specific or
> multiuse path') differs
> from the way it seems to being used 90% of the time (an
> ill-defined and not
> legally designated hiking path 'not otherwise
> specified' and probably
> unsuitable for any traffic other than pedestrian).
> Well, first of all, what you describe would still be
> correctly labeled as a "path". However, I have to really
> doubt that 90% of ways tagged with path are "probably
> unsuitable for any traffic other than pedestrian". Maybe 90%
> are unpaved, but unpaved does not mean "unsuitable for any
> traffic other than pedestrian". And there's already a tag
> for surface=paved/unpaved. That's my problem with the
> current usage. We shouldn't have a tag for surface=unpaved
> and a second tag for highway=surface_probably_unpaved.
100% of the paths I tag as highway=path are definitely impossible for
anything other than pedestrians - perhaps I'm in a more rural area than you?
E.g. undefined paths across fields interrupted by gates, stiles, etc. - or
upland / mountain hiking trails across moorland / bog / scree / rocks. On
these the surface changes so often with the terrain that the surface= tag,
which I use widely in other circumstances, is not very helpful.
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Richard Mann
> <richard.mann.westoxford at googlemail.com> wrote:
> highway=path for rough paths
> highway=footway for paved paths
> Can someone at least write a bot to go around changing path
> to footway or vice-versa if the surface=* doesn't match? Or
> (and I know this is never going to happen), put some code on
> the servers to disallow highway=path + surface=paved and
> highway=footway + surface=unpaved?
Although I don't necessarily disagree with Richard, I suspect that I use
=footway more and =path less than he implies. Neither is right or wrong -
just praxis. But I don't think we should start sending bots around while the
whole area is still debated so much - just look at the length of this thread
and all the others that precede it! And the complexity of the implied debate
on the consolidation page on the wiki.
> bicycle=yes if bikes are definitely allowed, and
> unlikely to be revoked
> bicycle=permissive if it looks like the land is private
> and someone could attempt to ban cycling in future
> What about bicycle=no? Is that the default? If so, I have
> to object. The default needs to be bicycle=unknown, or else
> it needs to be jurisdiction specific.
> highway=cycleway only used for well-engineered &
> public/permanant cycle tracks (ie could you safely do 20kph on it)
> This could work too, with perhaps a jurisdiction-specific
> definition only for cycleway. My only two (relatively small)
> problems are 1) something needs to be done quickly about
> inconsistent data like bicycle=path +
> surface=concrete/paved/asphalt/etc or bicycle=footway +
> surface=grass/ground/sand/unpaved/etc, before it gets too out
> of hand. And 2) you just can't make the default bicycle=no.
> Oh yeah, and "rough" should be "unpaved".
Unpaved is not necessarily rough - I know of plenty of cycleways / footways
/ paths / tracks that have a smooth compacted gravel surface that I would
regards as unpaved but allows cycling at well over 20 kph (usually without a
bell and at great peril to walkers - only kidding bike-guys - well almost
only ... )
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.716 / Virus Database: 270.14.107/2564 - Release
> Date: 12/14/09 07:37:00
More information about the Tagging