[OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway

[Mike Harris]

In order better to understand your point of view could you explain - perhaps
with an example or two - what you mean by the "basic physical status" of a
"path/road". In my innocence, highway=path does this (but I like this tag as
little as you do as it is so ill-defined); so does highway=track (but in
this group I have found widely different understandings of what 'track'
means); but highway=cycleway - imho - does not describe 'basic physical
status' but rather 'intended use' (after all a cyclist could ride along a
mountain path, a farm track or a paved and dedicated cycleway). I do
increasingly tend to agree with you, however, on the use of designation=
(not actually a new tag but one that has to date not been much used it seems
- I am just starting to use it myself in the way you describe). I would
really like better to understand what you are suggesting here.
 
Mike Harris
 


  _____  

From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxford at googlemail.com] 
Sent: 23 March 2009 18:14
To: talk at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway


Tagging is there to allow people who haven't been there to figure out what
is there.
 
highway=path just exports the problem to other tags
highway=(whatever the legal designation is) just exports the problem to
other tags
 
this just makes everything more complicated for everybody
 
I say:
highway should encode the basic physical status of the path/road
a new tag, designation should encode legal status, if people want to record
this
access should encode topup rules to make routing software work
 
Richard

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090324/84a36ce7/attachment.html>