[OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

[Mike Harris]

Roy

Could you give reference to your wiki quote? I can see for =designated at:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated

QUOTE

"This tag indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically by
a government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport."

UNQUOTE

There is apparently, perhaps unsurprisingly, some ambiguity in the wiki.

Mike Harris

-----Original Message-----
From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000000 at gmail.com] 
Sent: 14 August 2009 23:57
To: Nick Whitelegg
Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Nick
Whitelegg<Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> Silly question, maybe: but, what does "yes" actually mean? Everyone 
> seems to use it differently; it was intended originally for a legal 
> right but in practice has been used in a range of scenarios. In this 
> particular case ("Fahrräder frei" marked footways), do cyclists have a 
> *legal* right to use the footway, or is it an unoffical, revokable 
> right? If the former, "designated" would seem appropriate; if the 
> latter "permissive" would seem the most appropriate.

This is a good question. To quote from the wiki:

yes: "The public have official, legally-enshrined right of access, i.e. it's
a right of way."
no: "Access by this transport mode is not permitted, they don't have a right
of way."
designated: "The route is marked as being a preferred route, usually for a
specific vehicle type or types."

Thankfully, "no" is the opposite of "yes". I would prefer that designated
was used for "signed", and "yes/no" was discouraged, but used for fuzzy
judgements where useful e.g. suitability, "preferred"-ness, etc.

As for how it's used in practice, hopefully everyone follows the wiki,
right? :)