On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
Tagwatch suggests that surface=paved, unpaved, gravel, cobblestone, ground
and grass
are the most common values (those with over 10k uses).
cheers
Richard
(This was in response to my assertion that surface was
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 12:42:46PM BST, Richard Mann wrote:
*** I would like feedback/discussion on this particular point - whether
urban made-up and rural unmade footpaths should be tagged distinctively ***
I see no reason for paths to be tagged differently just because they are
in an urban
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Al Girling acgirl...@gcguk.demon.co.uk wrote:
Why footway exists but a tag for public footpaths doesn't
is frankly beyond me.
Because you're reading too much into the name. All the highway tags
were initially made up to end in '...way'. So forget you're ideas
I see no reason for paths to be tagged differently just because they are
in an urban or rural setting, but then I find highway=footway intensely
irritating! Why footway exists but a tag for public footpaths doesn't
is frankly beyond me.
It kind of does, the designation tag has been mentioned on
Richard Mann wrote:
*** I would like feedback/discussion on this particular point - whether
urban made-up and rural unmade footpaths should be tagged distinctively ***
They should receive different _sets_ of tags. But they are both
instances of highway=footway if they happen to be signposted.
Folks,
Having some time on my hands at the moment, I'm trying to get my head round
some of the inconsistencies/duplications/gaps in the usage of the highway
key. Having looked at the recent widescale adoption of highway=path in
Germany it is clearly fulfilling a need. I'm coming to the view that
On 03/04/2009 12:42, Richard Mann wrote:
*** I would like feedback/discussion on this particular point - whether
urban made-up and rural unmade footpaths should be tagged distinctively ***
Given we already have a separate tag for surface, I don't see the
distinction.
In highway engineering
-Original Message-
From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-
boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of David Earl
Sent: 3 April 2009 13:02
To: Richard Mann
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using highway=path for country
footpaths
Well
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, David Earl wrote:
In highway engineering terms in the UK a footway is always alongside a
road, and we don't tend to mark those separately anyway.
This is a slightly separate issue, but not marking them is a bit of a
problem in some cases because we end up with things like
April 2009 13:02
To: Richard Mann
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using highway=path for country
footpaths
Well, you know my view on this. A cycleway is a cycleway if it is
signed
as a cycleway, not because it appears to be constructed to a standard
I'm beginning personally to think that
highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway were all a mistake and that
highway=path and designation=public_footpath/etc, along with
suitable access keys (foot, bicycle, etc) would have been a better
starting point - there would certainly be fewer debates where things
Ed Loach wrote:
Indeed you can have designated public footpaths that pass through
urban areas
snip
Like this one?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=51.23497mlon=-0.59355zoom=17layers=B000FTF
--
Jonathan (Jonobennett)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Ed Loach wrote:
I'm beginning personally to think that
highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway were all a mistake and that
highway=path and designation=public_footpath/etc, along with
suitable access keys (foot, bicycle, etc) would have been a better
starting point
I think
On 03/04/2009 14:11, Steve Hill wrote:
However, mistake or not, we have what we have and making fundamental
changes doesn't seem especially likely (I have in the past made
suggestions regarding the fundamental data structure and have been met
with nothing but sarcastic replies and put-downs
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, David Earl wrote:
FWIW, I agree largely with the specific points on your wiki page, but I don't
think it will happen because of the effort involved.
The wiki page wasn't really supposed to be a this is how it needs to be
solution - the hope was to get people talking about
On 03/04/09 13:43, Gregory Williams wrote:
-Original Message-
From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-
boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of David Earl
Sent: 3 April 2009 13:02
To: Richard Mann
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using highway
16 matches
Mail list logo
