[OSM-talk] Fw: Highway, Suggested, Permissive or Provided

[Nick Whitelegg]

Meant to send this to the list. I wish mail clients would send things to 
the list by default....

--------------------- Forwarded by Nick Whitelegg/FT/Southampton Institute 
on 15/02/2007 10:31 ---------------------------




Nick Whitelegg
15/02/2007 10:07


To:     "Ben Robbins" <ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com>
cc:      
Subject:        Re: [OSM-talk] Highway, Suggested, Permissive or Provided 





>Ok, I mentioned this a little bit ago.  Briefly spoken of, but nothing
>happened.  I've thought about it a lot, and expanded it relative to 
replies.

>For ways like footways, bridleways, cycleways etc.  They appear under
>highway currently.  I think they need to appear in > 4 < different forms.
>They are the following.

>Highway: By law the access right is there.

>Suggested: In a accessible area as a whole, this is where people usually 
go,
>and/or are suggested to go.

>Permissive: The landowner allows it to be there.  They are free to remove
>it.

>Provided: The council put it there for access.  They are free to remove 
it.
>Common in towns.

I don't think it makes sense to put what is basically the same type of 
information (access rights) under different keys. I think it would make 
more sense to group these access rights under the foot, horse and bicycle 
tags.

e.g. foot=yes, suggested, permissive, provided
horse=yes, suggested, permissive, provided
bicycle=yes, suggested, permissive, provided

and then have another tag to describe the physical state of the way
e.g. highway = track, path or narrow_path

Then  renderers orientated towards access rights could use the permission 
combinations to render different paths differently, whilst renderers more 
focusing on the physical state of ways could use the highway tag.

Nick