On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 07:44:19AM +0200, Martin Simon wrote:
>> Using path-tag for cycleways would loose some information about the
>> road type. I think most real paths (where you can cycle) are much
>> different from real cycleways. I'd assume most paths to be narrow and
>> probably surface=earth. I'd not assume that for a cycleway.
>
>No, highway=path doesn't mean "narrow foot path in the woods, orcs
>lurking behind the trees", it can be any minor way (think "smaller than
>track") and can have any surface.
>The whole point is to have a way-type without much implications that
>can represent "footway/cycleway/bridleway" and any other way types with
>and without designation for one or more modes of transport, using the
>*=designated or *=official tags.
Right, I hope that we can deprecate highway=cycleway and use
highway=path with the (varying) implicit assumptions spelled out:
lit=yes/no, segregated=yes/no, bicycle=yes/no/designated/official,
foot=yes/no/designated/official, surface=paved/unpaved/.... Then
rendering, translation or routing tools will not need to make any
educated guesses.
If you think that highway=path is misleading for a cycleway, then think
about highway=steps. Stairs are quite different from highways. :-)
Marko
_______________________________________________
mkgmap-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.mkgmap.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mkgmap-dev
