On Thu, 2012-05-03 at 12:58 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote: > We both agree on using designation. This is good.
+1 > Would you also agree that h=paths are generally too narrow to use in a > 4-wheeled vehicle? After all, that's what h=tracks or the other road > types are intended for. Generally, yes. > By now, h=footway seems merely a specialisation of h=path. The _only_ > information it adds is that it's normally used by pedestrians, or that > it is built to be used by them. Using the more specific tag conveys > useful information information about the footpath's place in the > transportation network. The same sort of specialisation applies to > h=bridleway and h=cycleway. The thing I dislike about footway, bridleway, etc. is that they mix the physical characteristics with access information. Using your definition above I can think of a number of foottracks, bridletracks and even a footunclassified. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
