Should it not be highway=track, access:motorcar=no (access:foot=yes, etc if desired). That lets me know I can cycle 2-abreast, it is fairly firm (track grade could also be specified), and if I fall off then an ambulance driver can follow his specialised satnav to get to me. I have had a situation a few years ago where OSM & some adrenalin helped me get an ambulance on the C2C, the printed cycle map we had was unhelpful.
I'd also make a point about route relations, but that has been done already. Greg. On 16 December 2012 08:26, Andy Robinson <[email protected]> wrote: > A trail such as Monsal (and many others that follow disused rail lines) is > normally accessible by vehicle for maintenance purposes. It's not open to > the general public as it's a leisure route for walkers, cyclists and horse > riders (though I can't recall ever seeing a horse on there in all the times > I've visited). > > Cheers > Andy > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dave F. [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: 16 December 2012 01:07 > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] The Monsal Trail in Derbyshire > > > > On 15/12/2012 18:44, SomeoneElse wrote: > > > A couple of weeks ago I spent a very cold day walking up and down part > > > of the Monsal Trail - essentially from Little Longstone to the A6. > > > > > > It has been remapped since the tunnels reopened, but is in places a > > > bit of a hodge-podge, so I propose to standardise it a bit as follows: > > > > > > o Instead of the mixture of highway=cycleway, highway=path and > > > highway=track that exists currently, replace with highway=track > > > throughout (it's all wide enough for the trail maintenance folks' Land > > > Rovers), but with appropriate access tags (which is I think* foot and > > > bicycle=yes or permissive, and probably horse=yes or permissive, > > > vehicle=no) and also surface and lit tags. > > > > I don't know this route; do motorised vehicles have access to all of it? > > If not I don't think highway=track should be used throughout. According > to > > the wiki it is accessible to all vehicles. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Track. > > > > > > > > o Where the name tag incorporates both a tunnel name and a trail name > > > (like with way http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/116465140) > > move > > > the tunnel name to some other tag. Although I'm normally sqeamish > > > about having paths labelled after the most well-known trail that uses > > > them, in the case of the Monsal Trail I'm tempted to leave the > > > "name=Monsal Trail" labelling, because that's what the locals would > > > refer to it as. > > > > Route relations were invented to specifically solve this problem. The > Monsal > > Trail is a route that uses these ways. Other named routes could also use > > them, now or in the future. Putting the route in a relation avoids naming > > clashes. See the numerous NCN routes as examples. > > > > > > > > o Some of the ways that formed the old Monsal Trail before the tunnels > > > reopened are still present in OSM (and in some cases far from obvious > > > on the ground). Where these are tagged as bicycle-appropriate but > > > clearly aren't I'll remove that tagging; > > > > Again, I don't know the specifics, but just because the route has be > moved > > does that mean you can't cycle on the old ways? > > > > > > Cheers > > Dave F. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-GB mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > -- Gregory [email protected] http://www.livingwithdragons.com
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
