On 26/03/2009 15:35, Richard Mann wrote: > Before we all get too depressed, I think I agree with both of you (Dave > / Mike) that any changes to tagging should be backwardly-compatible, as > far as practical (or at least minimise the "wrongness" if the old > tagging is unchanged). > > But we also need a scheme that is simple, effective and shows what's on > the ground, not just what's on the sign.
Fine, but put it in a new tag or tags rather than changing the meaning of the existing ones from objective to subjective. A subjective judgement about surface quality doesn't make something a bridleway or a cycleway (any more than the narrowness of some Scottish roads doesn't suddenly make them not primary). Though I know you're thinking about other factors, surafce quality already has a tag for it. So if something is signed as a cycleway but really doesn't have the surface quality to support it (in your judgement), that doesn't make it not a cycleway. The original designation stuff arose where the sign contradicts the actual legal status (something signed e.g. as primary when information from the local council or whatever says no, that's not true). I know it's not always obvious and sometimes there are value judgements to be made when there is no other evidence to support something, but if the sign says bridleway, that is what it is and should be recorded as. Any data consumer should know that in that location, bridleways are legally usable by bikes and if surface is set properly, can assume it is or isn't suitable for cycling and act appropriately. If you're rendering a cycle map, you may well choose to render bridleway with a good surface in the same style as something marked cycleway. Why do you think cycleways are special in some way? primary roads are shared too - cycles, horses and usually pedestrians too can use them. David _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
