[OSM-talk] tagging trailblazes / marked paths
Inge Wallin
inge at lysator.liu.se
Wed Aug 6 07:56:18 BST 2008
On Wednesday 06 August 2008 00:45:20 Dave Stubbs wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Alex Mauer <hawke at hawkesnest.net> wrote:
> > Jon Burgess wrote:
> >> The only thing I see an issue with is introducing the specific
> >> 'highway=path' tag. I see this as an unnecessary complication.
> >
> > I guess it's a matter of perspective. I see it as a simplification:
> > instead of having three categories for one physical feature (and still
> > needing to twist reality in order to fit them in
> > (highway=footway+foot=no+ski=yes, anyone?) you have only one category.
> >
> >>>From a quick glance at the examples given I think they are all covered
> >>
> >> with combinations of highway=cycleway|footway|track with the other tags
> >
> > Except the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth, and tenth.
> > Yeah.
> >
> >> you propose like foot=y/n, motorcar=y/n or tracktype=gradeN etc.
> >
> > I propose none of those tags. the first two are part of the initial
> > revision of access=*, and the last I do not propose nor agree with.
> >
> >> I
> >> really don't see what highway=path adds.
> >
> > To quote the wiki page: "A generic path. Either not intended for any
> > particular use, or intended for several different uses." For the nth
> > time, bridleway/cycleway/footway do not cover these.
>
> Gotcha. Excepth that, assuming you /can/ walk on it, that's what the
> rest of us have been using highway=footway for since the dawn of time
> (well, dawn of map features maybe. well, last couple of years at
> least).
I beg to differ here. What do you mean "/can/ walk on it"? You can
basically walk everywhere. Heck, people are walking up to the top of Mount
Everest, but I'd be hard pressed to designate highway=footway along the
vertical walls of ice along that route. So that's not what "the rest of us"
have been using it for.
-Inge
More information about the talk
mailing list