I would nowadays tend to do the same as our German friends for rural paths that had no legal right of passage on foot and were not wide enough to be called tracks. Having said that, I used to use highway=footway for these plus foot=permissive - so I am still not really sure which is the better option! Mike Harris
_____ From: Richard Mann [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 May 2009 13:15 To: Andy Allan Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes About 14000 of the 14990 appear to be using highway=path for woodland paths, in Germany, and without designated access tags. The punters appear to want something that doesn't show up as a footway/cycleway. Richard On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Andy Allan <[email protected]> wrote: On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer, > especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990 people who are mapping paths and aren't in these discussions. Cheers, Andy
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
