[OSM-talk] Fwd: Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Martin Simon]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Martin Simon <grenzdebil at gmail.com>
Date: 2009/8/10
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
To: Marc Schütz <schuetzm at gmx.net>


2009/8/10 "Marc Schütz" <schuetzm at gmx.net>:

> ... except that many people don't like your assumption and interpret it as foot=yes instead.

Well, you're right here, we can not assume a designation for footways
because in ancient OSM times nearly everything was tagged as a
footway... "don't change the meaning of existing tags" is nearly as
important as "don't tag for the renderer" ;-)

So just add an explicit foot=designated to my example.

-Martin