[OSM-talk] Issue from IRC last night.... UK rights of way andaccess keys

[Etienne]

On 8/9/06, Nick Whitelegg <nick at hogweed.org> wrote:
>
> Etienne,
>
> > Nick
> > This seems more complex than needed.  It is certainly not easy for the
> > casual user to understand.
>
> The trouble is, UK countryside rights of way, and other routes in common
> use
> *are* complex. However, If the editors hide the complexity, and present
> the
> user with a range of pre-defined types (the conversion going on under the
> hood) this shouldn't matter too much.
>
> There is various meta-data associated with a right of way or other route.
> Firstly, the type of track (which corresponds to the "highway" tag) - e.g.
> is
> it a narrow path, wide path, track or metalled road? Secondly, the
> permissions - foot, horse, bike and car.


There was another thread recently about the distinction between
administrative classification and physical classification.  Physical
classifications are fairly universal (width=2m, surface=paved), but
administrative classifications are very locale specific.  I got the feeling
that the consensus from that thread was that the highway tag is really
describing UK specific administrative classifications (Primary roads, Trunk
roads, etc).



> Would it be possible to use something simpler or have it degrade to
> > something simpler that the casual user can get right fairly easily.
> >
> > Doesn't the highway=bridleway imply by default foot=yes, horse=yes,
> > bicycle=yes?  It seems redundant to have to state horse=yes.
>
> TBH I don't really think highway=bridleway is appropriate, because the
> highway
> tag generally specifies the type of route, not its permissions.



Assuming that the highway tag is an *administrative* classification, then
highway=bridleway makes a lot of sense to me.  Some council somewhere has
decreed that it is a bridleway and stuck up a sign saying so.

The only thing the casual user will know is that the path has a blue sign.
They won't know whether this means that bicycles are permitted or whether
mopeds under 50cc can use it, all they will know is what they see.



I would tend
> to go with foot=yes; horse=yes; bicycle=yes; highway=path (incidentally I
> would also replace 'footway' with 'path' so that bridleways which have the
> physical form of paths could be tagged as above). However, enough data has
> been tagged already with highway=bridleway|footway that to change it would
> probably create more hassle than it's worth.
>
> > Would this be simpler and workable?
> >
> > highway=footway
> > highway=bridleway
> > highway=byway
> > highway=rupp
> > highway=cycleway
> > highway=track
>
> > public=yes (optional, assume permissive unless specifically tagged as
> > public)
> >
> > Some examples:
> > Permissive footpath: highway=footway
> > Public footpath: highway=footway, public=yes
> > Public bridleway: highway=bridleway, public=yes
>
> The trouble with this is it ignores the fact that there are other types of
> (often unofficial) route, which have different permission combinations e.g
> .
> foot and horse, or foot and bike, or even horse only (no foot and bike
> traffic allowed). I think the existing scheme of highway for the type of
> path, and foot/horse/bicycle/car for the permissions covers all
> combinations
> excellently (with my reservations about highway=bridleway, above).
>
> I think we're getting near to the point at which a critical mass of rights
> of
> way has been tagged already. If we are going to change, it should be done
> now
> before it becomes too big a job to convert.


It should be possible to convert the data quite easily.  JOSM has a search
facility that selects all elements that match the search.  The tags of all
the selected elements can then be changed in one step.  Providing there is a
reasonable one-to-one mapping then adopting a new set of tags shouldn't be
too onerous.  That said, I agree that the sooner we have some consensus the
better.

Etienne
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20060809/cc90dff2/attachment.html>