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

Mike Harris mikh43 at googlemail.com
Tue Feb 24 17:19:29 GMT 2009


Again I find myself in almost complete agreement with you. I found
highway=cycleway a particularly difficult concept given that bicycle rights
are somewhat ill-defined in rights-of-way lore (notwithstanding the 1968
Countryside Act). I would have wanted to use it only for cycle lanes beside
vehicular highways - otherwise replacing it with highway=track plus
surface=, bicycle=yes, etc. However, your logic is better - and goes further
- scrap highway=footway / bridleway / cycleway .. Might as well be hung for
a sheep ... and upset the walkers and riders as well as the cyclists! (;>)

So ... back from the perfect world into the wonderful world of wiki - and we
stick with the established practice because it is just to difficult to
change ... And I shall continue doing what you have apparently been doing
and do what has always been done because anything is impractical ...


-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Whitelegg [mailto:Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk] 
Sent: 24 February 2009 15:46
To: Mike Harris
Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]

>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 
>then use to describe the physical nature? Similarly if bicycle=yes 
>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