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. Your urban built-up example: highway=footway surface=paved (or concrete/tarmac/...) your rural non-built-up example: highway=footway surface=unpaved (or earth/mud/clay/grass/...) highway=path says nothing specific about legal rights. So it might be the right thing to use for a line-of-desire path / sheep track across open access or common land areas: but only if that way isn't signposted as anything special on the ground. I'd tag both the area and any h=p through it with the same set of access tags, and try to join area to perpendicular entering ways at a node (possibly a gate, cattle grid...) Within urban areas I mostly default to highway=footway for unsignposted urban cut-throughs simply because they tend to have more infrastructure on the ground that you can use to grok the way's intended purpose. -- Andrew Chadwick _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
