[Talk-GB] Bridleway across field **Do tag for the USER**

ael witwall3 at disroot.org
Tue Dec 8 16:34:21 UTC 2020


On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 03:47:08PM +0000, David Woolley wrote:
> On 08/12/2020 15:11, nathan case wrote:
> > I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very dangerous to cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with access=discourged;designated but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all traffic in this case):https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93427676
> 
> In that example, "Cross Bay Walk - DO NOT ATTEMPT" violates "name is only
> the name".  It may or may not be possible to justify "Cross Bay Walk", but
> the "DO NOT ATTEMPT" is not going to be a valid part of the name.
 
Given the recent thread, it is odd that it has "warning=hazard"
rather than hazard=yes or something more specific.

> Unless there is a sign saying "unsuitable for pedestrinnoans, horses, and
> vehicles", or similar, I would say "access=discouraged" violates "do not tag
> for the renderer".  The wiki specifically says that an official sign is
> required before using "access=discouraged".

This seems to be taking things far too far. We *should* tag for the
user! Equating subjective with "there isn't a sign" is also pushing
things too far.

We are trying to make OSM the best map we can. Tagging dangerous or
non-existant paths in a way that ordinary users/routers cannot
distinguish is just plain wrong and irresponsible.

I am all in favour of tagging PROWs even where there is nothing on the
ground, but in a way distinct from "proper" paths/ways.

Agreed: do not tag for the renderer, but do tag for the user.

ael




More information about the Talk-GB mailing list