[OSM-talk] [tagging] Towpath relation: voting open
gerv-gmane at gerv.net
Fri Feb 6 07:52:04 GMT 2009
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> I'm not sure why the need for a specific towpath-waterway relation. Why not
> just have a general-purpose relation for "association"? It could be
> augmented with a type if need be, but that's probably unnecessary - if one
> member's a canal and the other's a towpath, you can deduce it from there.
There is no specific type for "towpath" - it's marked as a footpath,
service road, motorway, bridleway - whatever it happens to also be. Not
all towpaths are footpaths today, as you will know.
Basically, what I am proposing is a relation of two ways with a type -
type=towpath. It's no more complex than that.
More information about the talk