[OSM-talk] Deprecation/move of incorrect tags
hawke at hawkesnest.net
Tue Jul 17 09:19:43 BST 2007
Andy Robinson wrote:
>> The reason I have is that there is currently no way to have a path that
>> *isn't* primarily a footway, cycleway, or cycleway. A ski trail would
>> be a good example of this, which I actually have in my area; The path(s)
>> in question is not allowed to be used other than for skiing, (in winter)
>> presumably to prevent or reduce erosion.
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/WikiProject_Piste_Maps for details
> of how people have previously made piste maps
Hmm, interesting link. I thought tags based on class= were no longer
I hadn't considered alpine pistes, only nordic ski trails; they are
largely incompatible, since (as the linked page mentions) alpine pistes
are generally areas rather than trails/paths. They are often joined by
trails though, so that applies.
Would anyone have objections to the following new highway= values:
highway=atv (all terrain vehicle, typically 3-wheeler or 4-wheeler)
They may all need _trail or _path appended ... or maybe ...way for
consistency with bridleway/cycleway/footway.
That captures all the additional special-use trail types I can think of,
but still doesn't cover a shared-use trail. So to cover that instance,
highway=shared should work.
Again, does anyone have objections to those?
I'm still not comfortable with putting all sorts of routes under
highway, but if that's the consensus I can live with it. If that's the
case, is there any reason not to combine water-based routes in as well?
(The public land access rules of Scotland seem to correspond with the
lack of evident routes over water; that is, the only reason to document
a route in either case is because it's commonly in use. Note that I am
not entirely familiar with those Scottish rules so I could very well be
-Alex Mauer "hawke"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the talk