Hi Richard,
Am 2015-08-02 um 23:25 schrieb Richard:
>> Rationale:
>>
>> The current definition ("minor pathways which are used mainly or exclusively
>> by pedestrians") is not specific in providing definite distinctive features
>> between footway and path. The consequences are misconceptions and globally
>> inconsistent assumptions in selecting the right type.
>
> Another rationale: there is a mess and we need a fresh start with strictly
> defined set of properties which will not be changed again without vote as
> happened with highway=path.
>
> Enhancing highway=footway won't help much as you can not change preexisting
> use by a new proposal.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 tagging. Why don't you just say: highway=path and highway=footway area equal tags. You can freely choose. You need additional (to be defined) for a more detailed specification. Best regards Michael Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten ausgenommen) I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
