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 _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
