On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Evan Sebire wrote: > Why are we still using cycleway/footway, please describe only the > properties of the path. If the routing/rendering software is dumb/simple > that doesn't mean we must be! > The tags for describing paths properties are fairly stable and that is what > the software should be using. Smoothness, width, surface and incline. > > I find the tagging of a shared path as cycleway with foot=yes, horse=yes > etc silly. Using only the 'no' attribute would make much more sense. So a > shared path could be simply tagged as highway=path, and then describe its > properties. Hopefully with the time many attributes are recorded against a > path and the user can make up his/her own mind whether the activity they > want to do is suitable to the path. i.e. Is it to Steep? we're having another discussion about this same point concurrently on [email protected] and making a number of suggestions there care to join in?
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
