[talk-au] Undiscussed edits to Australian Tagging Guidelines on tagging footpaths/cycleways (Was: Discussion D: mapping ACT for cyclists – complying with ACT law)

[Andrew Davidson]

On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:30 PM Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I'm mildly for reverting, although I'm happy to hear out arguments either
> way and be proven wrong.
>

Up until May this year path meant an unsealed "track" that was too small
for vehicles (or at least that's how mappers were using them) now the
guidelines tell you to use them for all shared paths. I don't like this
because:

   1. The whole path tagging concept is not universally admired:
   https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy
   2. It makes Richard unhappy
   https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333
   3. Bare highway=path tags are meaningless
   4. Footway/bicycle=yes Cycleway/foot=yes tagging allows you
   differentiate between shared paths that are old 1.25m wide footpaths and 3m
   wide cycle paths. Switching to a path based tagging method throws this
   information out [1].

By the way, there is no right and wrong in tagging; only more or less useful


[1] width=* is only going to make Richard more unhappy.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20191004/f87e63be/attachment.html>