With the added connotation that ONLY the designated transportation methods
are allowed.
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot
drive out hate; only love can do that. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
On August 27, 2015
Maybe some places, but I would not assume that everywhere works that way.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 30, 2015, at 6:51 PM, John Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote:
With the added connotation that ONLY the designated transportation methods
are allowed.
--
John F. Eldredge --
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 12:09:44AM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Warin wrote:
On 28/08/2015 9:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
My suggestion is to not assume any access defaults but rather
explicitly tag
W dniu 29.08.2015 12:46, Richard napisał(a):
highway=footpath may cause less trouble.
Sounds interesting, that would separate real foot path from the
current path mess.
However the big question would be then how to implement it in our
ecosystem? Something as important as this would need
On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:17 AM, geow ks...@web.de wrote:
Along with specific sub-tags for physical and access properties it's the
Swiss army knife for non motorized traffic.
We have a cutting block full of kitchen knives. How many people use the
pocketknife to cut vegetables in the kitchen?
Javbw
On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:46 PM, Richard ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
I think that trail is very vague, look at english witkionary, wagon trail
etc
so the word itself would already cause trouble.
highway=footpath may cause less trouble
I think highway=primary is very vague. It is the
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 09:56:22PM +0900, John Willis wrote:
Those ways should be mapped and rendered differently. Which is why we have
track. We need trail too.
That abandoned trunk road in Box Canyon in the desert sure as hell isn't a
sidewalk.
isn't that a track?
Richard
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 01:10:17PM +0200, Daniel Koć wrote:
W dniu 29.08.2015 12:46, Richard napisał(a):
highway=footpath may cause less trouble.
Sounds interesting, that would separate real foot path from the current
path mess.
However the big question would be then how to implement it
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 03:17:17PM -0700, geow wrote:
I personally prefer to use the universal and compatible highway=path.
Along with specific sub-tags for physical and access properties it's the
Swiss army knife for non motorized traffic.
I don't think Swiss army knifes must be used for
Saturday 29 August 2015 12:46:04, Richard:
highway=footpath may cause less trouble.
I think it would cause *more* trouble.
This resembles highway=footway too much, especially for non-native English
speakers.
--
The field from of an email is about as reliable as the address written on the
On Aug 29, 2015, at 10:34 PM, Richard ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
isn't that a track?
In 1847 it was the first trunk road into San Diego from the east. Then, as
other roads were built and traffic dwindled away, it lost importance and grade
down to a track, and finally S2 was built to
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015, Richard wrote:
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 12:09:44AM +0300, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Warin wrote:
On 28/08/2015 9:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
My suggestion is to not assume any access
On 28/08/2015 13:45, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
as path can be sub tagged to be the same as bridleway or cycleway and
excluding pedestrians, this is simply not true
No, it can't. It _can_ be sub-tagged to have the same _access_
restrictions_ as a bridleway and cycleway, sure, and you could
sent from a phone
Am 28.08.2015 um 02:08 schrieb Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com:
As highway=path could be sub tagged to be the same as highway=footway
It was simply a lazy way of tagging a 'footway' with some sub tags rather
than actually using the existing tags.
as path can be sub
sent from a phone
Am 28.08.2015 um 15:01 schrieb Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com:
No, it can't. It _can_ be sub-tagged to have the same _access_ restrictions_
as a bridleway and cycleway, sure, and you could probably approach cycleway
with smoothness etc., but what about bridleway?
On 28/08/2015 15:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
horse=designated
That's an access tag. Are you saying that access tags convey physical
characteristics somehow?
In the absence of any other evidence you might assume that because I
can legally ride my horse / bicycle / drive my car down
John Willis wrote
On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:17 AM, geow lt;
ksgeo@
gt; wrote:
An additional highway type trail is no solution to the problem of
missing
decent classification criteria path vs footway and would likely cause
further trouble for many sorts of reasons.
Being able to confuse
On 28/08/2015 17:28, ksg wrote:
Am 28.08.2015 um 16:18 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
sent from a phone
Am 28.08.2015 um 15:01 schrieb Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com:
No, it can't. It _can_ be sub-tagged to have the same _access_ restrictions_ as a
bridleway and
Am 28.08.2015 um 16:18 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
sent from a phone
Am 28.08.2015 um 15:01 schrieb Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com:
No, it can't. It _can_ be sub-tagged to have the same _access_
restrictions_ as a bridleway and cycleway, sure, and you
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 18:44:52 +0200
Richard ricoz@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 01:47:28AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
My suggestion is to not assume any access defaults but rather
explicitly tag everything, and surface as well. Everything you
assume will be
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 01:47:28AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
My suggestion is to not assume any access defaults but rather explicitly tag
everything, and surface as well. Everything you assume will be questioned and
taken from you in a few years ;-) what is there explicitly will
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 16:07:54 +0100
Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/08/2015 15:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
horse=designated
That's an access tag. Are you saying that access tags convey
physical characteristics somehow?
In the absence of any other evidence you might
On Aug 29, 2015, at 7:17 AM, geow ks...@web.de wrote:
An additional highway type trail is no solution to the problem of missing
decent classification criteria path vs footway and would likely cause
further trouble for many sorts of reasons.
When you have one region say all sidewalks are
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, geow wrote:
Ilpo Järvinen wrote
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Warin wrote:
For those who would want to have a separate tag for 'trails', it's
exclusive but obviously those who would want to tag everything with
highway=path+subtags will disagree :-).
I see there are
sent from a phone
Am 28.08.2015 um 17:07 schrieb Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com:
On 28/08/2015 15:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
horse=designated
That's an access tag. Are you saying that access tags convey physical
characteristics somehow?
this is explicitly a synonym for
Ilpo Järvinen wrote
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Warin wrote:
For those who would want to have a separate tag for 'trails', it's
exclusive but obviously those who would want to tag everything with
highway=path+subtags will disagree :-).
I see there are three main sides in this, those who would
On Fri Aug 28 23:10:59 2015 GMT+0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
Am 28.08.2015 um 17:07 schrieb Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com:
On 28/08/2015 15:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
horse=designated
That's an access tag. Are you saying that access tags convey
On Sat, 29 Aug 2015, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, Warin wrote:
On 28/08/2015 9:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
My suggestion is to not assume any access defaults but rather
explicitly tag everything, and surface as well. Everything you assume
will be questioned
Friday 28 August 2015 18:28:44, ksg:
Some horse whisperer may translate that to English
Done. I'm not a native English speaker nor a native German speaker so please do
check the translation if you have the time.
--
The field from of an email is about as reliable as the address written on the
Hi all, thank you for taking the time to discuss my proposition. This has
been a remarkable and quite populated discussion in several ways, but it
doesn’t answer my question: Which criteria should distinct footway from
path?
I think a majority of mappers world wide would agree on this minimum
`highway=footway` implies an access tag `foot=designated`
`highway=path` implies an access tag `foot=yes` (but can certainly be
overridden)
“designated” is kind of a tricky concept, but it basically means something like:
- there is a sign saying you can walk there
- or something like a sign
Footway is a constructed or engineered way, dedicated and built to a grade
where foot traffic should expect an easy walk. This might make other traffic
passage easier as well ( bikes), but engineered with pedestrians in mind.
Path is a cleared area with minimal-to-no construction to create the
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015, John Willis wrote:
Footway is a constructed or engineered way, dedicated and built to a
grade where foot traffic should expect an easy walk. This might make
other traffic passage easier as well ( bikes), but engineered with
pedestrians in mind.
Path is a cleared
On 28/08/2015 9:47 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
sent from a phone
Am 28.08.2015 um 00:12 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi:
I think
any language ambiguity related to trail can be solved with proper
documentation. And also document sane default access assumptions.
sent from a phone
Am 28.08.2015 um 00:12 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi:
I think
any language ambiguity related to trail can be solved with proper
documentation. And also document sane default access assumptions.
highway=path was documented from the beginning and
Greg Troxel wrote
Ilpo Järvinen lt;
ilpo.jarvinen@
gt; writes:
It's not just about paved/unpaved. What I mean that there are two kinds
of
not paved trails through forest. Those which come with man applied
surface, even if we tag them as surface=unpaved (typically
surface=fine_gravel
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Greg Troxel wrote:
Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi writes:
It's not just about paved/unpaved. What I mean that there are two kinds of
not paved trails through forest. Those which come with man applied
surface, even if we tag them as surface=unpaved
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 9:58 AM, John Willis jo...@mac.com wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:59 PM, geow ks...@web.de wrote:
multi-use-path
Highway=cycle-ped_path
Done!
Lets render it with purple dots (blue+red).
Or we could just render it as a sidewalk, as that is what
sent from a phone
Am 07.08.2015 um 09:50 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com:
And their rules on =trunk through =secondary definitions are different than
most other countries mapped in OSM because they follow Japanese mapping
convention where the legal name /shield designation of the road
quote author=quot;johnwquot;
The difference between a cycleway, a footway, and a trail can be access
rules, but mostly its *the built condition of the way* and that *will* vary
from a 1st world to 3rd would country - and from continent to
continent.lt;/quote
Therefore proper tags on the
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, geow wrote:
quote author=quot;johnwquot;
The difference between a cycleway, a footway, and a trail can be access
rules, but mostly its *the built condition of the way* and that *will* vary
from a 1st world to 3rd would country - and from continent to
continent.lt;/quote
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:59 PM, geow ks...@web.de wrote:
Rendering should never rely on assumptions but on physical values
Theres no *physical* value separating a primary, secondary, tertiary,
unclassified, or service road. I can find one of each that the exact same
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 7, 2015, at 3:59 PM, geow ks...@web.de wrote:
multi-use-path
Highway=cycle-ped_path
Done!
Lets render it with purple dots (blue+red).
Or we could just render it as a sidewalk, as that is what it is. A Sidewalk.
Highway=footway+footway=sidewalk.
Which
On Aug 7, 2015, at 6:07 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
what is this legal name/ shield designation about, the relative importance of
the highway as a connection in the road network? Or something else like who
maintains the road (typically more politics and history
sent from a phone
Am 07.08.2015 um 13:05 schrieb Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com:
So if it's a 2m paved path with pedestrians and cyclists allowed, you call it
highway=cycleway if it's got a blue/white sign, and highway=path+various
other tags if it's got a
sent from a phone
Am 07.08.2015 um 01:15 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi:
unpaved paths is actually built-up
recretional route whereas the others are just tiny, some even faintly
visible, forest trails.
there are the tags width, trail visibility and maybe others, that
On Aug 7, 2015, at 5:31 PM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
For Belgium we follow this convention:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads#Paths
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads#Paths
It's full of highway=path examples. You'll give us
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 07.08.2015 um 01:15 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi:
unpaved paths is actually built-up
recretional route whereas the others are just tiny, some even faintly
visible, forest trails.
there are the tags width, trail
On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Marc Gemis marc.ge...@gmail.com wrote:
For Belgium we follow this convention:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Eimai/Belgian_Roads#Paths
It's full of highway=path examples. You'll give us a lot of work if we
have to revisit and retag them all. :-)
So
discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction
footway vs path
On Fri, 7 Aug 2015, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 07.08.2015 um 01:15 schrieb Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi:
Osm carto is about to activate
sent from a phone
Am 07.08.2015 um 13:05 schrieb Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com:
I'd also note that there are a lot more surface values that just
paved/unpaved nowadays - which kinda indicates the problem with relying on
subkeys: their values tend to get more
On Thu, 06 Aug 2015 08:45:10 -0400
Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
I agree that's a mess. I think the biggest issue is that path and
footway render very differently, e.g.
highway=path foot=designated bicycle=yes (== highway=footway,
with bikes allowed))
is almost the same as
sent from a phone
Am 06.08.2015 um 11:18 schrieb Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com:
Imagine in that example that bicycle access was permissive rather than
yes - how would you tag that?
bicycle=permissive
cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing
On 06/08/2015 10:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 06.08.2015 um 11:18 schrieb Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com:
Imagine in that example that bicycle access was permissive rather than yes
- how would you tag that?
bicycle=permissive
How would anyone know that this highway=path was
sent from a phone
Am 06.08.2015 um 09:06 schrieb Lauri Kytömaa lkyto...@gmail.com:
. Most sidewalks don't have any
traffic signs, but they are footways
whether they are footways in osm is somehow disputed I believe. They are not
independent ways on their own but rather similar to lanes
sent from a phone
Am 06.08.2015 um 09:06 schrieb Lauri Kytömaa lkyto...@gmail.com:
highway=cycleway: physically good for cycling and walking,
cycling legal, walking allowed if in country defaults or tagged.
I believe you can't imply physical characteristics here, the class is about
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 6, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
is it a highway? Tags are not always 1:1 representations of (all) the
meaning(s) of the words in natural language.
When we have footway, cycleway, bridleway, steps, track, and via_ferrata,
sent from a phone
Am 06.08.2015 um 11:24 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com:
On Aug 6, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
is it a highway? Tags are not always 1:1 representations of (all) the
meaning(s) of the words in natural language.
When we
2015-08-06 11:24 GMT+02:00 John Willis jo...@mac.com:
So far in the replies, Ive read a sidewalk isn't a footway (its lanes on
a road [no]) and a track in a wilderness park isn't a track (its a path
[uhh, no])
Not being able to define sidewalks separately nor separate tracks from
trails means
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 6, 2015, at 6:49 PM, Ruben Maes ruben.mae...@gmail.com wrote:
--+-- highway=footway footway=sidewalk
|
==x== highway=residential
|
highway=footway
footway=crossing
And the x gets highway=crossing of course.
+1
dieterdreist wrote
While duck tagging works very good within the same culture and region, it
bears at the same time the risk that mappers in different regions have
different assumptions of what is implied by certain words.
+1
On first sight, descriptive keys like footway or cycleway seem to
On Wed, 5 Aug 2015, Greg Troxel wrote:
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes:
Then what is the point of having path and all these other tags that
overlap?
because path and bicycle=designated is the same as highway =cycleway
path with horse=designated is the same as
Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi writes:
You seem to admit that there's need for some hierarchy, however, on the
same time you seem to oppose the idea that such hierarcy would exists
based on physical properties (man-made vs informal). I find it strange
since it shouldn't be that
Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi writes:
It's not just about paved/unpaved. What I mean that there are two kinds of
not paved trails through forest. Those which come with man applied
surface, even if we tag them as surface=unpaved (typically
surface=fine_gravel to be more precise),
On Thu, 6 Aug 2015, Greg Troxel wrote:
Ilpo Järvinen ilpo.jarvi...@helsinki.fi writes:
You seem to admit that there's need for some hierarchy, however, on the
same time you seem to oppose the idea that such hierarcy would exists
based on physical properties (man-made vs informal). I
I know its long, but hear me out.
Im not as good as the other poster...
On Aug 7, 2015, at 1:59 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Now the actual physical appearance will vary a lot between primaries
according to the context, true,
This is what we are referencing -
Lauri Kytömaa lkyto...@gmail.com writes:
Oh well, the yearly path discussion is here again.
On Thu Greg Troxel wrote:
as vehicle types default to no on all of these), but it will not
physically fit. If it did fit, the way should be tagged as a track.
Most of the time track is not a
Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com writes:
On 06/08/2015 10:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 06.08.2015 um 11:18 schrieb Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com:
Imagine in that example that bicycle access was permissive rather than
yes - how would you tag that?
bicycle=permissive
How would
Am 06.08.2015 um 12:10 schrieb Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com:
On 06/08/2015 10:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 06.08.2015 um 11:18 schrieb Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com:
Imagine in that example that bicycle access was permissive rather than
yes - how would you tag that?
sent from a phone
Am 06.08.2015 um 12:10 schrieb Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com:
Imagine in that example that bicycle access was permissive rather than
yes - how would you tag that?
bicycle=permissive
How would anyone know that this highway=path was actually, physically, a
On 06/08/2015 12:15, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
a cycleway is nothing physical, it is a legal setting. Or what do you mean with
physically?
... since we seem to have dipped into highway=path again :)
The English word cycleway refers to a physical object - which
archetype is
sent from a phone
Am 06.08.2015 um 17:03 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com:
Just as we have a variance as to what is a primary road in a third world vs
first world nation, we can still have a consistent regional meaning to what
is a primary road. The same could be said of cycleway or
On Aug 6, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Andy Townsend ajt1...@gmail.com wrote:
Much more elquently than me, Richard Fairhurst has explained the problem
previously in opinion pieces such as
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging
I would like
sent from a phone
Am 06.08.2015 um 15:22 schrieb johnw jo...@mac.com:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging
I would like that post burned onto the surface of the moon with a laser, so
we can see it hanging ver our heads every night as we map and think of
tagging schemes.
sent from a phone
Am 06.08.2015 um 03:50 schrieb johnw jo...@mac.com:
If I have a cycleway that is built to cycleway specs (paved, rounded turns,
lanes, and no stairs), but peds are still allowed, then it is a cycleway with
foot access =yes
I would never consider tagging that as
On 06/08/2015 09:28, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am 06.08.2015 um 03:50 schrieb johnw jo...@mac.com:
If I have a cycleway that is built to cycleway specs (paved, rounded turns,
lanes, and no stairs), but peds are still allowed, then it is a cycleway with
foot access =yes
I would never
On 06/08/2015 10:24, John Willis wrote:
On Aug 6, 2015, at 5:28 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
is it a highway? Tags are not always 1:1 representations of (all) the
meaning(s) of the words in natural language.
When we have footway, cycleway, bridleway, steps, track, and
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 6, 2015, at 11:20 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
If all mappers just map cycleways and don't care for access restrictions for
pedestrians we end up with the same tags meaning different things.
That is very true - which means that
On Aug 5, 2015, at 12:41 AM, Michael Reichert naka...@gmx.net wrote:
Hi Richard,
Am 2015-08-04 um 16:59 schrieb Richard:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:43:21PM +0200, Michael Reichert wrote:
I fully oppose highway=footpath. This is not backward-compatible and
will therefore break almost
On Aug 5, 2015, at 12:41 AM, Michael Reichert naka...@gmx.net wrote:
Every data user has to add highway=footpath to his style sheets,
scripts, config files etc. Please read paragraph 8 to 10 of Andy Allan's
posting at Github 1 1/2 years ago.
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:41:52PM +0200, Michael Reichert wrote:
Hi Richard,
Am 2015-08-04 um 16:59 schrieb Richard:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:43:21PM +0200, Michael Reichert wrote:
I fully oppose highway=footpath. This is not backward-compatible and
will therefore break almost all
sent from a phone
Am 05.08.2015 um 11:25 schrieb johnw jo...@mac.com:
The point Andy’s making is that a change in the tagging scheme, espcially a
new tag, makes everyone change all existing OSM renderers, etc - and that he
doens’t want to see meaningless or minimally useful tag changes
sent from a phone
Am 05.08.2015 um 11:25 schrieb johnw jo...@mac.com:
So is there a way to deal with the discrepancy of =footway, =path, and a lack
of an explicit =trail option without a new =footway tag? yea. It means more
strictly defining footway and path. which people don’t want to
sent from a phone
Am 05.08.2015 um 12:03 schrieb Richard ricoz@gmail.com:
Every data user who does not support highway=footpath will loose all
paths have highway=footpath because he expect them as highway=footway or
highway=path. That's what I call backward-incompatible.
sure, but
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 5, 2015, at 7:12 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
I don't see an actual problem, besides people interpreting different meanings
into the tag than what is actually documented. The ambiguity (or better
universality) is intentional.
If you
sent from a phone
Am 05.08.2015 um 12:52 schrieb John Willis jo...@mac.com:
There needs a better definition between footway and path
actually highway=footway is meant to be the same as highway=path and
foot=designated
cheers
Martin
___
This isn't an argument that's ever likely to reach consensus.
Use of highway=path for unmade paths, usage rights vague is unobjectionable.
Use of highway=footway for made-up paths, default usage foot is
unobjectionable.
Other uses carry a degree of ambiguity.
All we can do is document the
geow
dieterdreist wrote
sent from a phone
Am 05.08.2015 um 12:03 schrieb Richard lt;
ricoz.osm@
gt;:
In 2008 highway=path
was approved saying
The default access restriction of highway=path is open
to all non-motorized vehicles, but emergency vehicles are allowed.
Some years
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 06:20:50AM -0700, geow wrote:
geow
dieterdreist wrote
sent from a phone
Am 05.08.2015 um 12:03 schrieb Richard lt;
ricoz.osm@
gt;:
In 2008 highway=path
was approved saying
The default access restriction of highway=path is open
to all
sent from a phone
Am 05.08.2015 um 15:20 schrieb geow ks...@web.de:
Legal
access restrictions should always be tagged properly on the individual way.
+1
cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On Aug 6, 2015, at 7:49 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
and you can also make combinations without having to decide for footway,
cycleway or bridleway. Also, without any further access tags, path is neutral
and open to all unmotorized means of transport (unlike
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes:
Then what is the point of having path and all these other tags that overlap?
because path and bicycle=designated is the same as highway =cycleway
path with horse=designated is the same as highway =bridleway
and you can also make
geow kfs...@gmx.de writes:
I would like to propose an advanced definition of footway in order to have a
classification criteria from path.
highway=footway is used for pathways designated for pedestrians. The
designation may be explicitly by a signpost, implicitly by law (like
sidewalks if
sent from a phone
Am 06.08.2015 um 00:32 schrieb johnw jo...@mac.com:
actually highway=footway is meant to be the same as highway=path and
foot=designated
Then what is the point of having path and all these other tags that overlap?
because path and bicycle=designated is the same as
On Aug 5, 2015, at 8:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
actually highway=footway is meant to be the same as highway=path and
foot=designated
Then what is the point of having path and all these other tags that overlap? It
reinforces my belief that that path’s
sent from a phone
Am 04.08.2015 um 01:46 schrieb Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com:
Changing the definition/s is to address the distinction between the two.
changing definitions is always a mess, it would invalidate all current tagging.
Cheers
Martin
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 03:06:00PM -0700, geow wrote:
Richard Z. wrote
...
I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a
variant
of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and vehicles
unless
otherwise tagged and expected to be more
Hi Richard,
Am 2015-08-04 um 16:59 schrieb Richard:
On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:43:21PM +0200, Michael Reichert wrote:
I fully oppose highway=footpath. This is not backward-compatible and
will therefore break almost all applications which use OSM data. It
conflicts with existing, heavily used
On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 19:30:09 +0900
johnw jo...@mac.com wrote:
I DO NOT WANT path footway merged - we need to be able to show
rough/informal paths.
The problem is that distinction of highway=path and highway=footway is
meaningless, like with natural=wood vs landuse=forest as it varies
from
sent from a phone
Am 03.08.2015 um 17:41 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
Changing definitions now is pointless - who is going to resurvey and
verify over 9 million highway=path/footway ways to ensure that it will
fit new definition?
+1
for informal paths there is the
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
