Mike wrote: > I don't like highway=path very much either - but there are > circumstances > when I do fall back on using it. Perhaps Ed or someone can > advise what a > better option would be?
My comment was rather tongue in cheek, but I do personally feel that path is overused. Part of my problem with it is that everyone seems to use it slightly differently. I believe it is common in Germany to use it in preference to either highway=footway/bicycle=yes or whatever other combinations it might reflect. I've used it once or twice to reflect an obvious way through a grassy area which also has a grass surface (the difference being the obvious lengths of grass). These days I am more likely to use highway=footway/surface=grass (although that latter gets highlighted as not in Map Features by maplint which is a bit of a shame). Having said that I don't tend to tag the local (Essex, UK) public footpaths differently to any other footpaths between two places. I'm sure I will at some point, but never could get my head around the wiki page suggestions (though have it bookmarked to reread when I have a little more time). Is it highway=footway/foot=designated for the public ones? I'll have to check, but that sounds sensible. Actually, it seems not. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/UK_Countryside_mapping and http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_public_rights_of_way They seem to suggest use foot=yes, which seems a bit silly if the way is already tagged as a footway as I would assume yes. Or perhaps that's why it is suggested - use an unnecessary tag to indicate "public" rather than any other sort? Perhaps that is why I don't try and separately tag public footpaths from say the paths that join cul-de-sacs on housing estates at the moment. Ed _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
