On 31/07/18 16:22, Ian Caldwell wrote:
Some footpaths, some of which are rights of way, have been closed as
part of building a new residential estate
How should this be tagged or should I just delete them? I do not think
they exist on the ground anymore.
Do not delete! My personal
Yep,
I should have said add access=no and remove any conflicting access tags.
The foot=designated access tag could be added back in once pedestrian
access was once again allowed.
Kind regards,
Adam
On Tue, 31 Jul 2018, 16:58 Adam Snape, wrote:
> My personal convention for temporary closures
On 31/07/2018 16:58, Adam Snape wrote:
My personal convention for temporary closures is to add access=no.
This is what I've done in the past, although some users feel access=*
isn't the top level in the hierarchy of restrictions, & is usurped by
foot=designated.
DaveF.
My personal convention for temporary closures is to add access=no. Using
access tags for these temporary orders is consistent with how we map
permanent tros.
If the line is altered upon reopening or the path is formally extinguished
then the appropriate changes can be made as and when they occur
In the past I've simply modified the ways concerned by changing
highway=footway to higway=construction & construction=footway, leaving
all the other info intact
As mentioned in the preamble here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:construction
Cheers
Dan
2018-07-31 16:22 GMT+01:00 Ian
Some footpaths, some of which are rights of way, have been closed as part
of building a new residential estate
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/339576698. The closure notice says they
will be closed until March 2019 and I suspect they will have new routes
when/if they are reopened.
How should
6 matches
Mail list logo
