-----Adam Hoyle <adam.li...@dotankstudios.com> wrote: ----- >To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org >From: Adam Hoyle <adam.li...@dotankstudios.com> >Date: 04/05/2011 06:07PM >Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] On footpaths
>This is a very interesting discussion. I've been walking and then adding >footpaths north of High Wycombe / south of Wendover and surrounding areas for >a couple of years, but for various felt-too->much- >like-work reasons I've only just joined this mailing list in the last few >weeks. >Fwiw I had thought that footway meant an official footpath and path meant an >non-official, but obviously well used footpath, not that I used path that >often tbh.>I'm glad to hear about the designation tag, as that makes things a >bit clearer, but how does designation work with highway=bridleway? Should I be >adding both? Contentious one again. My own view, in an ideal world, (which not all agree with) is to separate out the *physical* characteristic and the *rights* so one could tag it as highway=path (if it resembles a dirt path) or highway=track (if it resembles a 4x4 style track) and then add designation=public_bridleway. *However*, pragmatically, to make the main Mapnik renderer show it, in practice it might be better to tag as highway=bridleway instead. I will admit to doing this currently. TBH my current views are really - give it a designation tag, and don't worry too much about the rest. Nick
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
