26 maj 2020 kl. 11:33 skrev Volker Schmidt <[email protected]>:
>
> We have now been reviving the path discussion in 73 messages, and counting ...
> I still feel we are not understanding each other (or is it only me who is
> lost?)
> To me a highway=path is a concept that is well defined in the wiki, and the
> various types can be described with existing tags.
The text and image at the top of
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=path> seems to indicate that
highway=path is mainly intended for more or less unprepared paths. Yet, the
examples at the bottom of the page show how to tag paved, signed, urban foot-
and cycleways.
And I am fairy sure I have seen people advocate that highway=footway and
=cycleway should be deprecated and replaced with =path plus various extra tags.
Personally, I would love to see highway=path in the woods and =cycleway/footway
for the purpose-built stuff, but existing tagging seems to disagree. Only a few
days ago, someone changed a >2-metre-wide, paved, signed [1], lit (I may be
wrong about that), cycleway near where I live from highway=cycleway to
highway=path.
So the problem is not that we can’t describe things, but that there are too
many ways to describe them. The reason that I have the complicated rule set I
described earlier for rendering highway=path is not that I think it’s fun, but
that it’s necessary to make sense of the data.
Admittedly, adding yet another tag to the soup might not be the right solution
to that problem...
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:120px-Zeichen_240.svg.png
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
