2010/10/22 Mike N. <[email protected]>: > I would still say that the current highway=path handles this very well. > I've never felt constrained by this tag with the common attributes. You > can provide direction to renderers by adding surface=, width=, sac_scale, > mtb:scale . If current renderers do not interpret *scale, surface, or > numerical width - this is a renderer problem.
Yes, I knew that this would be an argument brought into discussion. Path can basically handle everything (according to the definition in the wiki you could also tag motorways with path, if you put the right additional tags on it, that's not a joke, have a look in the wiki and see below) because it says almost nothing. IMHO it is out of the logic of our highway-classification to have path at all: all tags have their distinct signification, path hasn't. It has almost no meaning, vehicles can be permitted with subtags, lanes could be added, etc. The only reason for path to be there are path with no dedicated means of transport. Why tag a way as footway if it is a bridleway and a cycleway at the same time? That was the reason for path and I agree. But it should have a limit as well. I would distinguish informal and "ordinary" paths at the main level: they are different. There is a justification to do so. Here comes the motorway tagging as highway=path surface=asphalt width=12 lanes=3 oneway=yes motor_vehicle=official (or designated) foot=no bicycle=no horse=no moped=no snow_mobile=no access:requirement=possible_speed>60 maxspeed=130 source:maxspeed=IT:motorway easy. We could do this, why on earth do we need highway=motorway? Path can rule them all. Well, beside this little detail, that some paths are formal (they are intended, sign posted, maintained, have maybe names, etc.) and others are informal, usually shortcuts, usually not very long, shall not be maintained, etc. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
