> OK, perhaps "nonsensical" was too strong. "Against the intent of the > highway tag" certainly, and I'd add "defeating the purpose of the access > series of tags" as well. I hope you agree with my point that the legal > accessibility of a way doesn't belong in the highway key, especially > when we have a separate key for it. >
The highway tags are a mishmash of different concepts and properties of different kinds. There's physical, legal, and intended use jammed in there in different parts. If you're looking for proper separation of concerns then don't use the highway tag at all. But yes, in general I think things like legal right of way etc are best kept elsewhere, especially when we have a separate tag for it as you say. Hence why I assume highway=footway does not imply any kind of right of way, merely that this is a path, and people walk on it. So that leaves us with intended use. As far as I'm concerned if there's a path there, and people walk on it, then it's for people to walk on, so unless it has another obvious intended use I tag it as footway. Dave _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
