On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:46 PM, James Livingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > Most of the arguments I saw in the previous debate stemmed from two > questions: > * If a path can be used by both cyclists and pedestrians but has no > signage (or has signage for both), should it be footway or cycleway? > * What does *=designated actually mean?
Good summary James, thanks. > I think the first question mostly was the cyclists wanting cycleway > and the non-cyclists wanting footway. Both ways are perfectly valid, > and I can't see either being picked without flipping a coin. Yup. One of the benefits of using highway=path is that it avoids this situation. > I won't talk about my opinion on the second, in the hope that we won't > have another argument, look at the archives if you care. The big > problem here is that the different groups have actively been using the > alternative meanings, so we'd need to go back and edit a lot of data > to make it consistent with whatever eventually gets chosen. Of course, > not having a consistent meaning is worse than having to edit the data. All true. I think it is necessary and useful to first document all of these *existing* meanings on the wiki, and introduce more specific tags (e.g. referring to signage/suitability/designation/legality) for future clarification where necessary. For those interested in contributing further, I think the latest effort is at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
