Richard Mann wrote: > Path/footway/cycleway/bridleway/track isn’t really descriptive enough, and > come laden with assumptions about cycle access (in particular) that > currently need to be reviewed when tagging and rendering.
highway=path has no such assumptions. highway=track is totally irrelevant to the discussion (being for motor vehicles), but also has no such assumptions. > I’d like feedback on two things: > 1) highway=cycle&footway It seems to me that this conflicts with your point 2. If you want to separate the legal access rights from the physical path description, creating a new highway value which only has different access rights. > 2) divorcing the legal status from the highway tag Sounds good to me. Isn't this exactly what highway=path does, since it doesn't carry any access implications? -Alex Mauer "hawke"
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
