[OSM-talk] The Return of the Highway tags and other junk

[Nick Whitelegg]

> Now I'm proposing (in reference to tracktypes, the border key and features
> key) that it could be done something like this.., and if not, I’m proposing
> a discussion, to 1) say why its poor, and 2) suggest better..
>
> highway=footway
> foot=permisive
> tracktype=grade4
> railway=narrow_gaugue
> abandoned=yes (<I’m unshore of this as its not specific to what it
> references)
> border*=cattlegride
> border*=gate
> feature=viaduct

This is probably along the lines of what I would do.
I have come across one viaduct like this in the course of my mapping and 
admittedly I only focused on its footway properties, tagging it:

highway=footway; foot=permissive; name=Hockley Viaduct.

On reflection adding railway=abandoned would also be good. The viaduct 
property would have to go elsewhere, somehow.

In terms of the general tagging policy, I think we need tags for:

-physical description (dual carriageway, single carriageway, single-track 
road, gravel track, path). This has global application.
-national classification (motorway, A, B, unclassified, byway, bridleway, 
footpath). Each country would use something different.
- to cope with the large number of unofficial (non rights of way) routes and 
their different permission combinations, retain the foot/horse/bicycle tags 
too.

I think this is along the lines of what's proposed for the next version of Map 
Features.

Nick