[Tagging] access=designated wiki
ajt1047 at gmail.com
Sat Jul 25 13:24:47 UTC 2015
On 25/07/2015 13:43, Hubert wrote:
> 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  : "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.
I believe that the recent edits to the highway=footway page by Geow
resulted in it not reflecting the usage of the key - it seems to be
telling people how to use a key not documenting how they do use it. I
did raise it with the user concerned (1) (and interestingly other users
have raised similar problems there too) but frankly have no wish to get
into a wiki edit war or even a "discussion" with someone who doesn't
even edit the map (or at least, not in that name) (2). It's also perhaps
worth mentioning that the 18th Feb change (which you - and I - preferred
the previous version to) was made by a wiki editor who's since been
I only spotted the wiki change because someone spotted a large number of
footways that I had surveyed being changed into paths without any
information to give a clue as to physical type. We've seen other
similar instances where well-meaning but ignorant wiki edits have
resulted in well-meaning but ignorant "tag correctors" corrupting map
data (changing "wood=deciduous" to "leaf_type=broadleaved" was one).
Personally, to try and make sense of pages in our wiki I tend to view
the history and look at the "last edit by a sensible person", taking
particular care to read the previous version to anything labelled e.g.
More information about the Tagging