[Talk-GB] Composite mapping (OSM and OS, PRoWs etc)

Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com
Fri Sep 9 12:31:52 UTC 2016

On 9 September 2016 at 12:35, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
> I'm not enormously comfortable with highway=no - it's a bit like the justly
> discouraged amenity=pub, disused=yes. The designation= tag should be enough
> on its own for something that isn't actually a highway on the ground. (Maybe
> one could invent a namespaced highway tag but I can't immediately think of
> anything suitable...)

I agree that it's not perfect, but I think there definitely needs to
be a way to tag something explicitly as "not a highway", for cases
where other tagging suggests that it would normally be one. In
particular, there should be a way to distinguish programatically
between a way whose highway type is unknown and one where it is known
not to be a highway. The first case could arise by a mapper
accidentally missing or mis-spelling the highway tag or a remote
mapper being unable to add a highway tag without a ground survey
(there are a number of these on PRoW in Norfolk). For either
alternative, tools might like to report such instances as errors or
warnings for further investigation, but they should be able to avoid
reporting ways that are known not to be highways and tagged as such in
an appropriate fashion.

Actually, as far as routing is concerned, having to deal with
highway=no is probably not too bad: highway=construction and
highway=proposed are presumably handled as special cases somehow, so
"no" could be dealt with in the same way.


Robert Whittaker

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list