[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2009/8/13 David Earl <david at frankieandshadow.com>:
> How do you know what is "legal" vs "conventional"? Except if you are in
> a privileged position, it can only be from evidence on the ground, in
> which case what would you do different in most cases?

I don't think it requires a "privileged position" in a democratic
country to get this kind of information, but it might be easier and
faster if you are in it.
You could check your local town council announcements (they are a
usable source, as the have law-like nature and are therefore not
protected by copyright) or similar stuff that deals with this topic.

> Would you mark
> something as a cycleway where cycling (or whatever) is happening but not
> legal (as evidenced by the signage and knowledge of the relevant rules)?

no, but I'm actually tagging it as bicycle=yes because it is tolerated
(and there is no fine).

> Or not for cycles when the evidence shows that it is intended so? I
> think this legal stuff is a red herring (English idiom: a distraction)
> except in certain special cases.

> My feeling is that what we are missing is largely country-specific
> defaults. Or rather we have failed to recognise this in the
> documentation, but it is what pretty much everyone is doing in practice
> already, and that's got a lot going for it.

yes, it simply is not documented (yet).

> When we have exceptions, again the common practice is for people to
> indicate them. Hence a weight limit or a time restriction.

+1

> So my feeling is we should document what collection of users a
> particular highway tag applies to by default IN EACH COUNTRY (including
> things like "under 12" or "not on a Sunday" if that's the normal
> situation). Then tags and renderings mean what ordinary people (users
> and mappers) expect them to mean.

+1

> If a particular footway is specifically open to cyclists, for example a
> permissive path that someone quoted, then if the local rules are that
> pedestrians can use cycleways, it makes no functional difference whether
> it is marked as a footway where cycling is permitted (by whatever
> tagging convention) or as a cycleway.

you're wrong. It makes a difference on how the cyclist can go
(implicit maxspeed) and it makes a difference for the pedestrian who
can not legally use a cycleway.

> So I say: keep it simple, keep it compatible. Carry on with the simple,
> established tags we already have, but just clarify the default use
> classes which apply to each highway tag, PER COUNTRY, and tag exceptions
> to these according to evidence on the ground.

+1

> Add specific legal
> designations only where expert knowledge is available and different from
> the default interpretation.

why? It doesn't harm and serves in cases of ambiguity.

> I think the same principle applies to speed limits (motorway 70mph,
> trunk 60mph in UK, unlimited and whatever km/h in Germany etc), weight
> limits and so on.

actually we put maxspeed on all highways in Rome from unclassified
upwards, even when it is just implicit, and invented a tag to indicate
that the maxspeed is not explicit. We add a key maxspeed=50 and
maxspeedtype=ITA:city
In the unlikely case that the general maxspeed in Italian towns is
changed, we can change those maxspeeds that are implicit ones
automatically.

cheers,
Martin