I could more or less go with this too - but perhaps only if we could adopt more widely the use of designation= (or designated= - see earlier post!) to allow the definition of legal status (mostly in the UK admittedly) for those of us who are "public rights of way" workers. Is there a case for adding highway=track to the mix? Personally I find it useful to use highway=track for ways that are (mostly) not paved but physically wide enough for four-wheeled traffic - regardless of whether the designation would be as a public footpath, public bridleway or whatever; tracktype= can be added to further define surface and foot/bicycle/horse/etc. = can also be added. I would also think that a clear-cut highway=cycleway would automatically take priority over highway=track as it is more informative. By the same token I find it quite useful to use highway=path for a way that it is not wide enough for four-wheel traffic, is not a 'designated' public right of way or permissive path and is rural (as highway=footway seems a bit strange in these cases but fine in an urban context). Mike Harris
_____ From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com] Sent: 30 April 2009 15:10 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes 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 (for "raw" paths as you describe them). The dark grey dashed lines in Mapnik seem a good starting point. If "path" was rendered then the problem kinda goes away - use cycleway for good ways that are OK to cycle on, footway for good ways that are not OK to cycle on, and path for raw ways where access rights are unclear. That probably covers the bulk of situations. Richard On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Jacek Konieczny <jaj...@jajcus.net> wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini wrote: > If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you > tag them both as designated? > highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway > +bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted) I do that, when the paths are designated for both. I use 'cycleway+foot=designated' as those were usually built with bicycles in mind and I prefer using "path" for the more 'raw', usually unpaved paths, like in a forest. But there are foot paths which are not designated by bicycles, but bicycles are allowed there. The problem is that footway is always rendered the same, not matter if it is also tagged bicycle=yes or bicycle=designated (though I am not sure about the latter), which is not a problem on a generic road map, but is quite a problem for cycle/tourist maps. So, I guess, this thread is about a feature request for renderers. Nothing to fight about :) Greets, Jacek _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
