>This then would seem to make foot=yes unavailable as a description of the >physical nature of the way and to duplicate foot=designated. What would we >then use to describe the physical nature? Similarly if bicycle=yes (even if >we already have an option of bicycle=designated) means that bicycles are >legally allowed on a way then how do we say whether a way is suitable for >bicycles? Do we resort to using surface= or even smoothness= ?
Well my preferred approach in an ideal world would be to abolish highway=footway, bridleway, cycleway etc and replace them with highway=path, track, or service (using "highway" to describe the type of way as opposed to its permissions), together with appropriate permissions for foot, horse, bicycle (yes [or designated], no, permissive or private). Also use access=private for a catch-all private access to avoid having to tag each mode of transport separately. These could be augmented with surface (e.g. paved or unpaved) and width (e.g. width=narrow for a vague, hard to follow path). But in practice I recognise abolishing footway, bridleway etc is impractical due to the amount of tagging done already, and indeed I still use them, for consistency's sake. Nick _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
