[OSM-talk] Hiking Trails

Jeffrey Martin dogshed at gmail.com
Tue Aug 14 13:40:51 BST 2007

On 8/14/07, spaetz <osm at sspaeth.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 11:41:59AM +0000, Sven Geggus wrote:
> > > 1. Strong forces in the community to stick to the
> > > highway=footway,cycleway,bridleway tags.
> >
> > Hm, I always thought about them as a strange differentiation. While a
> lot of
> > cycleways in urban areas are plain cyclyways, most of them are not in
> rural
> > areas.
> >
> > What you can find very frequently at least here in Germany is a
> combination
> > of agricultural service-ways with cycle/footways.
> >
> > I strongly believe that these ways should be marked as cycleway in
> whatever
> > way.
> *sigh* What prevents you from doing a highway=track;bicycle=yes as it is
> described in the map features page?
> This way the cycle layer can draw it as a proper cycleway, while car maps
> will rener it as a track. Most of the stuff you complain about can be solved
> with a few existing tags.
> Whether it's already rendered the way you want it to be is a different
> question, but that is a renderer issue, not a data model issue...
> spaetz

(are we supposed to answer on the bottom or the top? I'm on to many mailing
to know.)

If you have a road designed for cars or tractors then I would want that on
my cycling or
hiking map because I might want to go on it, but I want to know that it's
not specifically
designed for bicycles. If it's tagged as a cycling path then
a renderer is likely to make it look the same as a path made specifically
for bicycles.

I also want to use less tags.

> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20070814/e3aa1671/attachment.html>

More information about the talk mailing list