[OSM-talk] Issue from IRC last night.... UK rights of way andaccess keys
Nick Whitelegg
Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk
Wed Aug 9 13:50:20 BST 2006
Sent by: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org
To: "Nick Whitelegg" <nick at hogweed.org>
cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Issue from IRC last night.... UK rights of
way andaccess keys
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).
I think I must have missed that one. In that case, the
'highway=footway|bridleway|byway' etc does sound sensible. Most cases are
covered under this scheme, however there are still a couple of issues:
Firstly permissive bridleways generally do not have bike access, but some
do. How would one distinguish between the two?
Secondly permissive tracks in general have a wide range of different
permissions e.g foot+horse, foot+bike, foot+bike+horse, horse only. How
would these be dealt with?
I still don't think it matters too much if the tags are complex, it's
better for them to be sufficiently descriptive. As long as the editors
hide those details, it doesn't matter too much.
Nick
More information about the talk
mailing list