[OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]

Nick Whitelegg Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk
Tue Feb 24 15:45:58 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. What would 
>then use to describe the physical nature? Similarly if bicycle=yes (even 
>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= ?

Well my preferred approach in an ideal world would be to abolish 
highway=footway, bridleway, cycleway etc and replace them with 
highway=path, track, or service (using "highway" to describe the type of 
way as opposed to its permissions), together with appropriate permissions 
for foot, horse, bicycle (yes [or designated], no, permissive or private). 
Also use access=private for a catch-all private access to avoid having to 
tag each mode of transport separately. These could be augmented with 
surface (e.g. paved or unpaved) and width (e.g. width=narrow for a vague, 
hard to follow path).

But in practice I recognise abolishing footway, bridleway etc is 
impractical due to the amount of tagging done already, and indeed I still 
use them, for consistency's sake.


More information about the talk mailing list