Another issue is that the designation key is sometimes
misused by newcomers because of its prominence in
some editors (trac issue 4251), which makes it harder
for international applications to use it even when this
happens outside Britain and could well strengthen the
opinion that this is not
Hi All,
I hadn't thought about public footpaths along a road. It nicely
demonstrates that for RoWs the highway tag really doesn't matter as it is
the designation that gives the relevant information.
In that case I would tend to agree with Andrew's methodology (which also
makes things easier for
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012, Rob Nickerson wrote:
I hadn't thought about public footpaths along a road. It nicely
demonstrates that for RoWs the highway tag really doesn't matter as it is
the designation that gives the relevant information.
Well, in my case it's not even *along* the road... it's just
I think both have their advantages - I like the idea of a good signposted
rights of way network, but I intensely dislike the Anglo-American attitude
towards private property compared to say Scotland or Germany (naming two
countries I've walked in where they seem to be more easy-going)
On the
If we treat path and footway as synonims, that would be ok. The only
thing is that I (maybe incorrectly) treat footway as having an implied
access permission (things like little paved walkways in towns) - a bit like
highway=unclassified.
On the other hand I treat highway=path as just being a
Hi,
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Graham Jones wrote:
On the other hand I treat highway=path as just being a statement of fact -
'there is a path here', so it needs some access tags adding to it. In my
mind highway = footway is about the same as highway=path; foot=yes (or
maybe
Hi
You are dead right - I was talking about paths as in narrow strips of
ground for walking on.
I would tag a public footpath as highway=whatever is appropriate:
unclassified|residential|service|track|path, designation=public_footpath.
Graham.
On 18 February 2012 10:48, Derick Rethans
On 17 February 2012 15:43, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.ukwrote:
From my understanding, a minimum of ONE to TWO tags are needed:
a) a highway tag. This represents the physical properties of the way, e.g.
service, track, path (or footway - see below)
b) if applicable, a
On 17 February 2012 15:43, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk
mailto:nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
From my understanding, a minimum of ONE to TWO tags are needed:
a) a highway tag. This represents the physical properties of the
way, e.g. service, track, path (or
On 17/02/12 15:16, Craig Wallace wrote:
On 17/02/2012 14:26, Andrew Chadwick wrote:
Re https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines
Who's with me? Any against? I'd *love* to know up front if anyone has
any evidence of big areas of highway=path + access tags used as a
On 17 February 2012 17:35, Andrew Chadwick a.t.chadw...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd still love to see some areas with big outbreaks of
highway=path+designation-only, or highway=path+access-tags-only as
representations of public paths. Must throw down some overpass-api
quadrats around the country to
I think I have worked out how to do the query using national park
relations, and get the following results for a small sample:
National Park | Footway (no des) | Footway (des) | path (no
des) | path (des) |
New Forest (way ID 129493402) | 153| 213 |98
12 matches
Mail list logo
