On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:30 PM Andrew Harvey <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm mildly for reverting, although I'm happy to hear out arguments either > way and be proven wrong. > Up until May this year path meant an unsealed "track" that was too small for vehicles (or at least that's how mappers were using them) now the guidelines tell you to use them for all shared paths. I don't like this because: 1. The whole path tagging concept is not universally admired: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Path_controversy 2. It makes Richard unhappy https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333 3. Bare highway=path tags are meaningless 4. Footway/bicycle=yes Cycleway/foot=yes tagging allows you differentiate between shared paths that are old 1.25m wide footpaths and 3m wide cycle paths. Switching to a path based tagging method throws this information out [1]. By the way, there is no right and wrong in tagging; only more or less useful [1] width=* is only going to make Richard more unhappy.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
