On 3/06/2014 9:52 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
For a long time I've been tagging for the renderer, using
highway=footway for paved footways and highway=path for unpaved
footways. I only just realised that this is wrong and I should use the
surface tag for that.
There are a lot of bushwalking tracks tagged as highway=path, I think
that these should actually be highway=footway + surface=ground if they
are signposted as walking tracks.
Unfortunately the 'path' / 'footway' thing is poor. In the Australian
guide lines the basic separation is 'footway' = urban and 'path' =
bush/non-urban. Roads and other things are not separated by where they
are, so I think this is poor! I think 'footway' should be paved, 1.2m
wide, pedestrians yes, motorvehicle no (other than the postman), bicycle
state dependant! ... unless tagged otherwise. A path might be taken as
unpaved, 2m wide, pedestrians yes, motorvehicle no, bicycle yes ...
unless tagged otherwise.The raods are treated much better ... lots of
types all with their defaults. TRhe same could be done for paths ... but
won't be ... path=footpath (defalt pedestrian= yes, surface=paved, width
= 1.2meters, motorvehicle=no); path=cycleway;
path=shared,path=bridleway;path=walkingtrack;path=runningtrack;path=staircase;path=escilator;path=lift;path=
Back to the real world.
Along with the 'surface' tag ... the other tags I'd like to see used are
'width' and 'source'. (The source tag is not for rendering but for
future editors information).
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
