[Talk-GB] On footpaths

Nick Whitelegg Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk
Thu May 5 00:04:05 BST 2011



-----Adam Hoyle <adam.lists at dotankstudios.com> wrote: -----
>To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
>From: Adam Hoyle <adam.lists at dotankstudios.com>
>Date: 04/05/2011 06:07PM
>Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths

>This is a very interesting discussion. I've been walking and then adding footpaths north of High Wycombe / south of Wendover and surrounding areas for a couple of years, but for various felt-too->much-
>like-work reasons I've only just joined this mailing list in the last few weeks.

>Fwiw I had thought that footway meant an official footpath and path meant an non-official, but obviously well used footpath, not that I used path that often tbh.>I'm glad to hear about the designation tag, as that makes things a bit clearer, but how does designation work with highway=bridleway? Should I be adding both?


Contentious one again. My own view, in an ideal world, (which not all agree with) is to separate out the *physical* characteristic and the *rights* so one could tag it as highway=path (if it resembles a dirt path) or highway=track (if it resembles a 4x4 style track) and then add designation=public_bridleway. 

*However*, pragmatically, to make the main Mapnik renderer show it, in practice it might be better to tag as highway=bridleway instead. I will admit to doing this currently.
TBH my current views are really - give it a designation tag, and don't worry too much about the rest.

Nick

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20110505/bffbfd1f/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list