[Tagging] access=designated wiki

Hubert sg.forum at gmx.de
Tue Jul 28 16:35:05 UTC 2015


FYI: I just took the liberty of changing the highway=footway definition back to the pre Feb 18th Version.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andy Townsend [mailto:ajt1047 at gmail.com]
>Sent: Samstag, 25. Juli 2015 15:25
>To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki
>
>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 [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.
>
>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 blocked
>(3).
>
>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.
>"cleanup".
>
>Cheers,
>
>Andy
>
>
>(1) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Geow
>
>(2) http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Geow
>
>(3) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xxzme
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




More information about the Tagging mailing list