[talk-au] Cycleway/footway/path

[jhen at talk21.com]

I believe the present system works better than the simplified system proposed.

With a system of shared paths, the simplified system would result in all paths being treated the same.  They would become indiscernible.

This link provides a good example: http://osm.org/go/uNP_xlQv

All paths marked are shared paths, but one side of the creek is much more suitable for cycling than the other.  And this is because of the significantly different physical properties of the paths themselves.

We should not be prepared to see this valuable information lost.

By parity of reasoning, we could remove all ambiguity in deciding between the different types of road (motorway or trunk, trunk or primary, tertiary or unclassified, etc) by having just one type: motor_traffic=yes.  Problem solved in one fell swoop.

I have a strong feeling that this would be unacceptable.  We need to know about different types of path and road.  Just knowing that they're suitable for bicycles or for motor traffic isn't enough.  Such dumbing-down of the data to meet a lowest common denominator is something I believe we should be avoiding like the plague.

John

--- On Fri, 7/8/09, Cameron <osm-mailing-lists at justcameron.com> wrote:
My preference is for greater use of highway=path with it defaulting to foot=yes and then additional access tags relating to surface, access by bicycles, horses, etc. Basically I think anything which is not designed for a car should be a path. 



I would actually propose abolishing highway=footway and highway=cycleway but fear that could be met with disapproval. Certainly I think that any highway=cycleway;foot=yes or highway=footway;cycle=yes or highway=bridleway;foot=yes should be made into highway=path with appropriate tags.



~Cameron



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20090807/44860ecd/attachment.html>