[OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]
lists at mail.atownsend.org.uk
Tue Feb 24 12:39:51 GMT 2009
> This then would seem to make foot=yes unavailable as a description of the
> physical nature of the way and to duplicate foot=designated.
The Key:access wiki uses the word "preferred" when describing
designated. I can see the point with regard to e.g. truck routes, but
less so for English and Welsh footpaths. The case for =designated as
opposed to =yes is probably best made by one of the proponents of that
tag (I think that it's already been mentioned that it came along later).
I had assumed that "highway=footway" implied that the physical nature
of the path was such that you could walk along it.
> What would we
> then use to describe the physical nature? Similarly if bicycle=yes (even if
> we already have an option of bicycle=designated) means that bicycles are
> legally allowed on a way then how do we say whether a way is suitable for
> bicycles? Do we resort to using surface= or even smoothness= ?
A good point, and further complicated by the fact that ground conditions
vary throughout the year.
> We have several converted former railway lines in Cheshire and I have been
> in discussion with colleagues on these as all are multi-use although
> priorities differ. In one case the county council has designated the old
> railway as a route for riders - but cyclists and walkers have also adopted
> the route; legally the use is only permissive for every class of user as it
> is not a right of way; ...
Actually that raises another issue (notwithstanding the point below) -
in cases where the legal status is only available on either a copyright
map (either bought or on the wall at the local council) - it's sometimes
not possible to know what the legal status of all traffic on e.g. a
former railway line is. In such cases I've gone with what the signs say
on the ground, interpreted in the context of other signs nearby, and
resorted to "unknown" and added a note where it isn't clear.
(re coloured footpath parkings):
> Excellent question - I had not thought of it because I am so familiar with
> the scheme (as one of those who actually put the waymarks in place!) - but
> it does give clear information as to legal status in England and Wales.
(... lots of useful info clipped ...)
> Hope this helps. Should I add an abbreviated form to the wiki - perhaps on
> the mis-named UK Public Rights of Way page?
I'd certainly find it extremely helpful, and it would also help if
someone either renamed the page or added a separate Scottish section
explaining what the situation is there.
More information about the talk