[Tagging] access=designated wiki

Hubert sg.forum at gmx.de
Sat Jul 25 12:43:43 UTC 2015

Am 24. Juli 2015 um 17:50 schrieb Heiko Eckenreiter [mailto:Heiko.Eckenreiter at gmx.net] :
>Am 24.07.2015 um 17:24 schrieb Hubert:
>> But only the way with the traffic sign will be tagged with
>> bicycle=designated, foot=designated using the definition in the
>> description box
>> That is not logical, because both ways are still equally designated to
>> pedestrians and cyclist in both situations.
>Today in OSM it's documented, only the ways signposted with a traffic
>sign should be tagged with *=designated (as described on the cited page
>access=designated and much more).

The only wiki page with such a strict formulation I could find is the "highway=footway" page [1] : "highway=footway is used for signposted paths designated for pedestrians only. Signposted footpaths are primarily common in residential areas, but may also exist out-of-town in recreational environments, parks etc.. ".
But in this context one must agree that highway=footway is equal to "highway=path, foot=designated". Also this was only changed recently by Geow on June 28th.
Bevor that it read : "highway=footway is mainly used for residential paths designated for pedestrians only." 
And till Feb 18th :" The tag highway=footway is used for mapping minor pathways which are used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians." Which is the definition I prefer.

Other wiki pages don't use a strict formulation, but are using words like "often" or "typically" to relativize the definition.
[2] access page: "A preferred or designated route for a specific vehicle type or types, often marked by a traffic sign."
[3] bicycle page : "Where a way has been specially designated (typically by a government) for bicycle use"
[4] "access=designated" page : "Typically it is used on ways legally dedicated to specific modes of travel by a law or by the rules of traffic."

>Now you'd like to apply the tag *=designated also to ways which are
>constructional intended for the specific traffic but without a traffic
>sign, right?
>I object this due to the reasons:
>- this is changing an existing tag definition, it's not downwardly
>compatible (designated would then no longer mean "signposted")
>- it will therefore lose the possibility to distinguish between ways what
>are signposted and that what are not.

Using "designated" for "signposted" ways only is IMO a very bad choice, since it is in contrast to the lingual meaning of the word "designated". 

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=footway 
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access 
[3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle
[4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated

More information about the Tagging mailing list