Nick Whitelegg >Sent: 20 November 2008 3:27 PM >To: Donald Allwright >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Ordnance Survey tries to reinforce its stranglehold >over "derived" geographic data in the UK > >>Actually, the current tagging doesn't seem to have enough granularity >here. The highway=path, highway=footway, foot=yes, horse=designated etc. >tags >doesn't seem to include a way of actually saying if a path is a >public right of way or a permissive path. > >It does. The "yes" value for a tag means that it's a legal right of way >for that mode of transport (foot, horse, bicycle). The "permissive" value >means it isn't, it's just a permissive path.
The problem is that it's not entirely clear. foot= might mean I can walk it. The word doesn't imply that it's a right-of-way. Much better to put the administrative designation on an access= tag I know this is somewhat different from general convention but the confusion is the reason that generally I have not added foot= or access= tags for footways. Cheers Andy > >Nick > >_______________________________________________ >talk mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.7/1798 - Release Date: 18/11/2008 >8:59 PM _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
