[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway
Lester Caine
lester at lsces.co.uk
Mon Aug 10 15:16:56 BST 2009
Lauris Bukšis-Haberkorns wrote:
>> Add separate tracks for the footpaths associated with a highway
>> footway=side
>> footway=in_verge
>
> but this something that would be really great as most, but not all of
> the roads have footways in one or both sides and that would make
> tagging such thing easily.
>
> This must be discussed, completed and accepted asap so more people
> could start using it without fear that it would change..
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Footway
This is missing the point completely :(
Micro mapping needs to have a SEPARATE way for this. Just the short distance
between my own road and the next village has several changes of side and
position for the footpath, which simply adding tags to the existing ways does
not properly address!
This is a case of the distinct difference between 'highway' defines
everything, and mapping the actual features rather than guessing where they
are relative to some vaguely connected highway. If we are never going to
provide high resolution maps, then the guestimate method works, at some point,
actual road widths become important, as does additional features either side
of those roads?
Once you start adding this sort of fine detail it has to be done as a separate
object. Breaking up a simply way every time the footpath detail changes, and
then trying to combine that with additional ways where they fall a bit further
way from the road is what needs to be avoided?
--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
More information about the talk
mailing list