[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Lester Caine]

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