On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:59 PM, James Livingston <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't really want to get into this argument again, but I believe > that either we're going to end up with local rules for the access > mappings, or some regions are going to have to tag every single > cycleway/footway with overrides.
There is another option: The characteristics of *paths* should be tagged only as they exist *on the ground* - that is, surface, width, lanes, *signage*. Local laws should be known by the locals (and tourists should use the "I'm a tourist, Officer" + "but the sign didn't say I couldn't X here" excuse). I know this is probably controversial, but I think it is one way to define the scope to avoid some problems, and also enforces verifiability. > Personally, I think the former is > better because it's a lot less work and there are going to be other > things that need local interpretations - such as whether > highway=residential should be practically treated as > access=destination for the purposes of vehicle routing. Nah, I think access=destination roads should be marked as access=destination (when they are signed as such, as they are in, e.g. Brisbane, Australia). _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
