[OSM-talk] Rights of way (was: Vote: highway=path)

[OJ W]

A path with horse,foot,cycle=yes still isn't a bridleway though (e.g.
on a bridleway, cycles are permitted but the surface doesn't have to
be suitable for cycling - a situation more complex than just
cycle=yes).  The legal bridleway has more attributes than just who is
allowed to travel along it (e.g. races can't be held on bridleways)

It also can't be easily updated if the laws change - bikes weren't
always allowed on bridleways, and hasn't the list of vehicles allowed
on byways changed recently?

The issue isn't so much discussion of loads of new tags, but the
potential loss of existing data if people start using
highway=bridleway for something which isn't one (or use horse=yes
instead of a bridleway tag, which has pretty much the same effect)



On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 8:38 AM, Nick Whitelegg
<Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> Would it be better to have something other than "yes" to mean "legally
>>> enshrined access permission" to protect against people tagging stuff as
>
>>> "yes" without fully understanding what it means (i.e. people not
> reading
>>> the wiki)?
>
>>I think it would.  I suggest access=highway
>
> It would have to be contained within the foot, horse, bicycle, and
> motorcar tags though, so that the "official" rights of *each* mode of
> transport can be described.
>
> Nick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>