Both footway and path infer a way of a certain width suitable for people to use, neither infers any legal right of use as far as I am concerned.
If starting over path is a better word as people outside of OSM have clue what it is but otherwise I see them as interchangeable. Kevin On Tue, Mar 12, 2019, at 7:37 AM, Adam Snape wrote: > > > On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, 12:54 Devonshire, <m...@fortyfivekev.co.uk> wrote: >> __ >> I have personally deprecated highway=bridleway|byway etc. as the combination >> of highway=footway|track|service and designation=public_footpath etc. >> contains more useful information both for map rendering and for active map >> users. Whether you wan't to do the same is up to you. >> >> Kevin > > Byway is universally depreciated these days. > > It seems somewhat odd to reject bridleway whilst using footway which shares > the same arguable 'flaw' of tagging both physical appearance and implied > access in one tag. For those unhappy with these tags, as Dave mentions, the > highway=path tag was designed to physically describe a physical path and be > used in combination with access tags. > > Now, I can understand using either the 'classic' (highway=footway or > highway=bridleway) or 'alternate' (highway=path + access tags) tagging > schemes but I'd think that a hybrid resulting in combinations like > highway=footway horse=designated is best avoided . > > Kind regards > > Adam > > >>
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
