[Talk-GB] Bridleway or track?

Devonshire maps at fortyfivekev.co.uk
Tue Mar 12 09:17:25 UTC 2019


Both footway and path infer a way of a certain width suitable for people to use, neither infers any legal right of use as far as I am concerned.

If starting over path is a better word as people outside of OSM have clue what it is but otherwise I see them as interchangeable.

Kevin


On Tue, Mar 12, 2019, at 7:37 AM, Adam Snape wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, 12:54 Devonshire, <maps at fortyfivekev.co.uk> wrote:
>> __
>> I have personally deprecated highway=bridleway|byway etc. as the combination of highway=footway|track|service and designation=public_footpath etc. contains more useful information both for map rendering and for active map users. Whether you wan't to do the same is up to you.
>> 
>> Kevin
> 
> Byway is universally depreciated these days. 
> 
> It seems somewhat odd to reject bridleway whilst using footway which shares the same arguable 'flaw' of tagging both physical appearance and implied access in one tag. For those unhappy with these tags, as Dave mentions, the highway=path tag was designed to physically describe a physical path and be used in combination with access tags.
> 
> Now, I can understand using either the 'classic' (highway=footway or highway=bridleway) or 'alternate' (highway=path + access tags) tagging schemes but I'd think that a hybrid resulting in combinations like highway=footway horse=designated is best avoided .
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20190312/0f9b9125/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list