[OSM-talk] how to map this? cycleway or footpath?

[Roy Wallace]

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:59 PM, James Livingston <doctau at mac.com> wrote:
>
> I don't really want to get into this argument again, but I believe
> that either we're going to end up with local rules for the access
> mappings, or some regions are going to have to tag every single
> cycleway/footway with overrides.

There is another option: The characteristics of *paths* should be
tagged only as they exist *on the ground* - that is, surface, width,
lanes, *signage*. Local laws should be known by the locals (and
tourists should use the "I'm a tourist, Officer" + "but the sign
didn't say I couldn't X here" excuse). I know this is probably
controversial, but I think it is one way to define the scope to avoid
some problems, and also enforces verifiability.

> Personally, I think the former is
> better because it's a lot less work and there are going to be other
> things that need local interpretations - such as whether
> highway=residential should be practically treated as
> access=destination for the purposes of vehicle routing.

Nah, I think access=destination roads should be marked as
access=destination (when they are signed as such, as they are in, e.g.
Brisbane, Australia).