[Tagging] *** GMX Spamverdacht *** Re: highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path
ricoz.osm at gmail.com
Tue Aug 4 14:59:14 UTC 2015
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:43:21PM +0200, Michael Reichert wrote:
> >> 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.
quite the opposite. It won't break anything. It will be ignored for some
time untill data consumers learn about th new tag.
>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.
So after highway=path was approved and used for a few years we change
the definition to something completely different.
This is what I call a backward compatibility nightmare.
More information about the Tagging