[Tagging] *** GMX Spamverdacht *** Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Michael Reichert nakaner at gmx.net
Sun Aug 2 21:43:21 UTC 2015


Hi Richard,

Am 2015-08-02 um 23:25 schrieb Richard:
>> Rationale:
>>
>> The current definition ("minor pathways which are used mainly or exclusively
>> by pedestrians") is not specific in providing definite distinctive features
>> between footway and path. The consequences are misconceptions and globally
>> inconsistent assumptions in selecting the right type. 
> 
> Another rationale: there is a mess and we need a fresh start with strictly
> defined set of properties which will not be changed again without vote as 
> happened with highway=path.
> 
> Enhancing highway=footway won't help much as you can not change preexisting
> use by a new proposal.

I fully oppose highway=footpath. This is not backward-compatible and
will therefore break almost all applications which use OSM data. It
conflicts with existing, heavily used tagging. Why don't you just say:

highway=path and highway=footway area equal tags. You can freely choose.
You need additional (to be defined) for a more detailed specification.

Best regards

Michael



Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschl├╝sselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150802/8e2607c2/attachment.sig>


More information about the Tagging mailing list