[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Tom Chance]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:06:12 +0200, Nop <ekkehart at gmx.de> wrote:
> I think the main questions are:
> 
> - Can we agree on a common interpretation of what foot/cycleway are
> supposed to mean?
> - Do we want a general meaning for every country, delegating local
> specifics to other tags, or a local meaning dependent on a countries
> specific conditions?
> 
> - Can we use the existing access-Tags to describe the exact rules of
> traffic e.g. in Germany (which seems to have the highest requirements so
> far) and agree on the meaning there, too, or do we need to invent a
> whole new scheme for local specifics?
> 
> - Do we tag generic trails as highway=path or does this tag have a more
> complex meaning?
> 
> Can we try to discuss the problem at this level before proposing
> detailed tagging schemes?
> 
> 
> There is also the questions which is important but should not be mixed
in:
> 
> - how can we get a coherent tagging model for OSM?

+1 to the above.

Incidentally, I personally think that Nick Whitelegg's reasoning is sound,
and that ideally something like the path proposal *should* replace and
deprecate footway, cycleway, etc.

But we really need to change the way we develop our tags, so that a more
sensible procedure along the lines Nop proposed can actually be
implemented. I'm going to start a new thread with a thought on that.

Regards,
Tom