[OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes

[Mike Harris]

I would nowadays tend to do the same as our German friends for rural paths
that had no legal right of passage on foot and were not wide enough to be
called tracks. Having said that, I used to use highway=footway for these
plus foot=permissive - so I am still not really sure which is the better
option!
 
Mike Harris
 


  _____  

From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxford at googlemail.com] 
Sent: 01 May 2009 13:15
To: Andy Allan
Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes


About 14000 of the 14990 appear to be using highway=path for woodland paths,
in Germany, and without designated access tags. The punters appear to want
something that doesn't show up as a footway/cycleway.
 
Richard


On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Andy Allan <gravitystorm at gmail.com> wrote:


On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann
<richard.mann.westoxford at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer,
> especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used


Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being
used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing
it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990
people who are mapping paths and aren't in these discussions.

Cheers,
Andy



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090501/6c16a132/attachment.html>