Mike Harris > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Frederik Ramm > Sent: 14 December 2009 09:15 > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without > explicit knowledge of the law? > > Hi, > > Steve Bennett wrote: > > highway=shared_use (or mup [multi-use path] or shared_path) > The point > > is that these paths generally feature some level of bicycle and > > pedestrian use. > > I think I am having a deja-vu. The very reason people added > the highway=path proposal (almost exactly 2 years ago) was to > "provide a value for a nonspecific or multi-use path." > (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Path). > Although I have a lot of sympathy for the issues currently being explored (again?!) and some sympathy for the solutions, I would not at this stage support the re-invention of a meaning for highway=path that - although perhaps reflecting the purpose for which it was originally intended (cf. Frederik's message - apparently a 'non-specific or multiuse path') differs from the way it seems to being used 90% of the time (an ill-defined and not legally designated hiking path 'not otherwise specified' and probably unsuitable for any traffic other than pedestrian). I find that the practical usage is usseful (a catch-all for 'not otherwise specified') and the apparent original usage ambiguous ('non-specific' aand 'multiuse' can be widely and differently interpreted - including from each other).
> Bye > Frederik > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
