Thanks Richard - my oops!
_____ From: Richard Mann [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 March 2009 15:37 To: Mike Harris Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway Oops, slipped off including "talk". I've forwarded my last to the list; you may like to do so also... Richard On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Mike Harris <[email protected]> wrote: Richard - again helpful - after reading your comments I think the main area of disagreement between Dave and me is the around the use of highway=path. I am sure I have read somewhere (wiki, mailing lists?) a fairly strong plea to minimise the use of highway=path whenever something more specific (such as highway=footway) is available? Perhaps someone has a better memory than I do? This is one of three reasons why I have tended to favour highway=footway for ways that are clearly unsuitable for more than pedestrian traffic. By observation of the developing map itself - and also from the mailing lists - a second reason might be that there seem to be two schools of thought around the meaning of 'path': those who regard it as something less well-defined on the ground than a 'footway' and those - apparently like yourself - who see it as something 'more than just a footway'. I've taken the middle course of avoiding it wherever possible -- at least where there is an alternative tag for which there seems to be more consistency in established practice - and keeping =path for vague paths that are 'there' but are not public footpaths. Maybe I'm wrong! But who's right? My third reason for avoiding highway=path is that someone could walk a route one day and find that the path has not been reinstated across a ploughed field or a crop. If this is a public footpath, pressure (and ultimately legal action) will be used - sooner or later - by the highway authority. The landowner may then reinstate and the path may become very clear indeed - even a day or two later. Also, in many cases a farmer is allowed a grace period (conditions too complex to matter here!) before reinstating. So a judgement based on lack of reinstatement - as Dave seems to suggest - while objective, may be very ephemeral - and I'm hoping our maps are of lasting value! As I've already said, I'm in agreement with Dave on several of his points and am pretty much in agreement with the points that you are now making (other than on =path). I would certainly vote against highway=cycle&footway as this can be done with foot= and bicycle= - as seems usually to be existing practice. I would also probably vote against highway=cycleway + cycleway=shared as I can expect arguments galore as to whether it is highway=cycleway cycleway=shared (cycling viewpoint) or highway=bridleway and bridleway=shared (equestrian viewpoint) etc. ad nauseam! I still feel that cycleway is only well-defined in a limited set of cases that I have mentioned earlier (with the usual grey area round the edges! - of the definition, that is, not the cycleway (:>)) and that beyond these cases the use of this tag does indeed tend to become somewhat subjective according as the mapper is primarily a cyclist, walker or horse rider! Mike (Cheshire) _____ From: Richard Mann [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 March 2009 12:58 To: Mike Harris Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cycle&footway 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. I think the nub of it is the tagging of path/bridleway/cycleway. I think "path" serves a useful function for ways that are more than just footways, but where usage/access for horses/mtb/bicycles is uncertain. I think "bridleway" serves a useful function in those countries where access for horses is well-established (and thereby is becomes a useful shorthand for highway=path+designation=public_bridleway), but in practice there may be little to distinguish a bridleway from a path (and there might be sense in rendering them quite similarly). Whereas, highway=cycleway is an explicit assertion that the surface is somewhat better than you might expect on a bridleway/path, without going into the minefield of the multiple values that might be tagged for tracktype/surface/smoothness. I think I'm concluding that highway=cycle&footway is unnecessary; perhaps highway=cycleway+cycleway=shared would be a better bet (and leave it to the renderers whether they do anything with that). But if highway=cycleway is to be used for shared cycleways, then the wiki definition will need to be more inclusive than currently. Richard (West Oxford)
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
