[Talk-GB] "United Kingdom Tagging Guidelines" on the OSM wiki: due for an update?
grahamjones139 at gmail.com
Sat Feb 18 09:41:56 GMT 2012
If we treat path and footway as synonims, that would be ok. The only
thing is that I (maybe incorrectly) treat footway as having an implied
access permission (things like little paved walkways in towns) - a bit like
On the other hand I treat highway=path as just being a statement of fact -
'there is a path here', so it needs some access tags adding to it. In my
mind highway = footway is about the same as highway=path; foot=yes (or
maybe designation=public_footpath, but that is more specific).
We should clarify this if we are going to treat them the same or adopt one
over the other.
from my phone
On 18 Feb 2012 08:28, "Nick Whitelegg" <Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk> wrote:
Possibly relevant here: Freemap's database has a rural bias, as it covers
only certain counties: specifically W Sussex, Surrey, Hampshire, Wiltshire
and Somerset in the south;
Cheshire, Derbyshire, Lancashire and Cumbria in the north; and all of
Wales. The dominance of footway still holds:
footway (all) 81766
path (all) 14904
footway + designation 11711
path + designation 2042
footway + foot=permissive 3699
path + foot=permissive 1619
However I'd agree that what would really be interesting is the trend.
The main thing that comes out of this data is how many footways OR paths
lack either a designation tag or a foot=permissive.
I suspect that many of these are rights of way or permissive paths. Since
we really want to let people know where they can
definitely walk, I think this is a more important issue to fix than footway
-----Graham Jones <grahamjones139 at gmail.com>
<grahamjones139 at gmail.com>wrote: -----
To: Andrew Chadwick <a.t.chadwick at gmail.com> <a.t.chadwick at gmail.com>
From: Graham Jones <grahamjones139 at gmail.com> <grahamjones139 at gmail.com>
Date: 17/02/2012 07:43PM
Cc: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] "United Kingdom Tagging Guidelines" on the OSM wiki:
due for an update?
> On 17 February 2012 17:35, Andrew Chadwick <a.t.chadwick at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd still ...
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org...
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB