On 03/04/2009 12:42, Richard Mann wrote: > *** I would like feedback/discussion on this particular point - whether > urban made-up and rural unmade footpaths should be tagged distinctively ***
Given we already have a separate tag for surface, I don't see the distinction. In highway engineering terms in the UK a "footway" is always alongside a road, and we don't tend to mark those separately anyway. So our use of this rather specialised word "footway" doesn't correspond to the only other use of it. I just don't see the distinction between a muddy metre wide path that happens to run between houses from one that doesn't. And if it is surfaced, we have a means to say so already. > To summarise & clarify, I'm getting towards: > highway=path for unmade/part-made pedestrian ways, typically in > rural/woodland settings, or urban shortcuts (implies foot=yes, rest=no) > highway=footway for well-made pedestrian ways, typically in urban > settings, though sometimes in popular rural/woodland settings (implies > foot=yes, rest=no) > highway=bridleway for (typically unmade) ways clearly identifiable as > for use by horses as well as pedestrians, typically in a rural/woodland > setting (implies foot=yes, horse=yes, rest=no) > highway=cycleway for ways that have been engineered for "normal" cycles, > in both rural and urban settings, but which are less than 2m wide > (implies foot=yes, bicycle=yes, rest=no; horse=yes to be added where > appropriate) > highway=track/unclassified/etc for ways that are at least 2m wide > AND > designation=footpath/bridleway/restricted_byway/byway/permissive_footpath/permissive_bridleway > > to record right of way in England & Wales (probably with a default > assumption that highway=path implies designation=footpath and > highway=bridleway implies designation=bridleway unless tagged otherwise) Well, you know my view on this. A cycleway is a cycleway if it is signed as a cycleway, not because it appears to be constructed to a standard that happens to be suitable for carrying bikes. Likewise bridleway, which in the UK permits cyclists to use it (by default). And where did this arbitrary 2m come from? That would mean some signed cycleways in Cambridge wouldn't be marked as such because they are wider than 2m. Perhaps you are trying somehow to distinguish between a specially constructed cycleway and a road which has been converted for cycle use. But in my mind that's just a wider cycleway. It will come as no surprise to you that I completely disagree with your approach to this whole subject. David _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
