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

[Andrew Harvey]

Fair points, so I agree to revert back the previous guidelines. I see
highway=path used a lot for unsignposted bush walking track (single person
wide, definitely not wide enough for vehicles), though for something that's
unpaved then highway=path and highway=footway mean the same thing to me.

On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 16:48, Andrew Davidson <theswavu at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20191004/1a908e5c/attachment.html>