Nick Again I find myself in almost complete agreement with you. I found highway=cycleway a particularly difficult concept given that bicycle rights are somewhat ill-defined in rights-of-way lore (notwithstanding the 1968 Countryside Act). I would have wanted to use it only for cycle lanes beside vehicular highways - otherwise replacing it with highway=track plus surface=, bicycle=yes, etc. However, your logic is better - and goes further - scrap highway=footway / bridleway / cycleway .. Might as well be hung for a sheep ... and upset the walkers and riders as well as the cyclists! (;>)
So ... back from the perfect world into the wonderful world of wiki - and we stick with the established practice because it is just to difficult to change ... And I shall continue doing what you have apparently been doing and do what has always been done because anything is impractical ... Mike -----Original Message----- From: Nick Whitelegg [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 24 February 2009 15:46 To: Mike Harris Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging] >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
