On 02/05/12 16:41, Nick Whitelegg wrote:
>>>One project goal might be to consolidate the various scattered
>>>information on the wiki describing how to map RoWs in the first place.
>>>Come up with *one* consensus approach. We seem to be settling on
>>>designation=* + highway={foot,cycle,bridle}way, by the looks of it (full
>>>disclosure; it's the approach I'm cheerleading).
>>
>> Contentious point :-) Many, myself included, prefer the
>> highway=service|track|path|unclassified plus designation=whatever.
>We both agree on using designation. This is good.
>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.
Yes. path for a narrow path impassable by a 4x4, track for one which is.
>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.
Possibly for cycleway, though if I wanted to be purist I'd probably tag them as
highway=path; surface=asphalt; bicycle=designated.
However I'm generally happy with highway=cycleway as a de-facto standard,
seeing as they are so common. However there seems little point for
highway=bridleway other
than t*****g f*r t*e r******r. Most bridleways are *not* designed for horses.
They are simply public rights of way for which horses have rights other than
pedestrians. A few horse-only tracks do exist, I agree, but not enough to
warrant a separate value for highway.
Likewise footway has become a kind-of de-facto standard in towns but again the
purist in me would want to use highway=path; surface=asphalt or similar.
>There is no such thing as a mappable path which is neither used by
>anyone nor currently built up for use by someone.
But most paths have either a designation (in which case, use the designation
tag) or have permissive access for one or more types of transport.
In which case, the designation, foot, horse and bicycle tags will cover it.
>FWIW, I'll still use h=path for true armchair "dunno" cases. It's by no
>means a useless tag, but to me it signifies that someone, myself
>included, hasn't gone and looked and made the distinction.
Not to me - it suggests a path wide enough to take pedestrians, bikes and
horses, and not wide enough to take 4x4.
>> and allows multi-layer rendering such as
>> that done on Freemap.
>Not sure what you mean by this. Could you clarify? If it's just
>designations that make this happen, I think both systems work.
See www.free-map.org.uk and note how the designations are indicated by a
coloured transparent layer
while the underlying physical ways are indicated by the standard "OS" styles
for roads,tracks and paths.
Having just path, track, or the various types of road mean that the rules for
writing the stylesheet are simpler.
However it's no big deal.
Nick
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
