[OSM-talk] Highway tags and other junk

[Dominic Hargreaves]

On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 03:22:59AM +0000, Ben Robbins wrote:

> The 2nd part of this long email is about tracktypes.
> 
> I have brought this up twice before on the mailing list, and a few times in 
> the IRC, and then there?s a wiki page which has been updated a few times 
> and images added; and there has been a vote for a long time.  Its also 
> stuck on my user page just for the hell of it.  (I am appreciative of the 
> few bits of discussion on the wiki page, although the conversations where 
> short).     I proposed this tag after about 3 months of using it and 
> changing it to fit.  Now many months later and its really been tested, and 
> works well.  The important thing on the wiki was to sort out the naming of 
> the tag, but I have now used this tag many hundreds if not a thousand 
> times, so it will take a LOT of my time to change them, when if this was 
> resolved quickly it wouldn?t have taken much time at all.
> 
> I now give up, and I shall continue to use this tag regardless.  Resolving 
> this democratically was a waste of time, so I shall now just stubbornly use 
> it, and confront any opposition in my path!
> 
> This is a very much needed tag, as any users that don?t live in urban areas 
> must shorely understand.  Even if someone only wants 1 track tag, it still 
> should not be under highway= as a track is not a public right of way in any 
> form (like all the other highway tags), unless an additional tag is stuck 
> on it.  E.g.  a track may be a byway, and therefore the track has access 
> rights of the byway.

Either you or I am mistaken. I don't believe that the highway tag
implies (or should imply) any rights of way.

Dominic.

-- 
Dominic Hargreaves | http://www.larted.org.uk/~dom/
PGP key 5178E2A5 from the.earth.li (keyserver,web,email)