[OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway

[Andrew Chadwick (email lists)]

Oh, good grief.

While *that*'s all happening downthread, perhaps the people who've
actually been out mapping the area that's sparked off this storm of
nonsense can come to some form of rough consensus and useful maps (to
paraphrase).

I'll start.

Richard Mann wrote:
> Why do I think highway=bridleway+surface=something is inadequate to tag
> Willow Walk - because there are 16 cited values for surface (and you'd have
> to look at tracktype & smoothness too). Whereas
> highway=cycleway+designation=public_bridleway does the job with the minimum
> of fuss.

There are about 4 _applicable_ values of surface for WW given how patchy
it is, so yes. A single surface field doesn't quite cut it. And the
longest stretch of continuous usefulness for the way is for cycle and
foot traffic.

Not going near tracktype and smoothness. Ugh.

So let it be a cycleway, tagged designation=public_bridleway. Surface I
guess we can use the "best" (vehicular) value for it: paved, probably.
Acceptable?


(There's a similar situation where I've been mapping recently too: a
road for access to a mobile home park and a farm that you'd think on
first looking at it was a fairly concrete service/driveway. Signs say
bridleway; and indeed if you follow it through it turns off into a more
conventional thin, muddy, hoof-churned pathway for horses. So two
stretches, one tagged h=service;designation=public_bridleway, the other
tagged as a regular h=bridleway.)

-- 
Andrew Chadwick