In order better to understand your point of view could you explain - perhaps with an example or two - what you mean by the "basic physical status" of a "path/road". In my innocence, highway=path does this (but I like this tag as little as you do as it is so ill-defined); so does highway=track (but in this group I have found widely different understandings of what 'track' means); but highway=cycleway - imho - does not describe 'basic physical status' but rather 'intended use' (after all a cyclist could ride along a mountain path, a farm track or a paved and dedicated cycleway). I do increasingly tend to agree with you, however, on the use of designation= (not actually a new tag but one that has to date not been much used it seems - I am just starting to use it myself in the way you describe). I would really like better to understand what you are suggesting here. Mike Harris
_____ From: Richard Mann [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 23 March 2009 18:14 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway Tagging is there to allow people who haven't been there to figure out what is there. highway=path just exports the problem to other tags highway=(whatever the legal designation is) just exports the problem to other tags this just makes everything more complicated for everybody I say: highway should encode the basic physical status of the path/road a new tag, designation should encode legal status, if people want to record this access should encode topup rules to make routing software work Richard
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
