Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

> On Aug 6, 2015, at 7:49 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > and you can also make combinations without having to decide for footway, > cycleway or bridleway. Also, without any further access tags, path is neutral > and open to all unmotorized means of transport (unlike footway, cycleway et

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

geow writes: > I would like to propose an advanced definition of footway in order to have a > classification criteria from "path". > > "highway=footway is used for pathways designated for pedestrians. The > designation may be explicitly by a signpost, implicitly by law (like > sidewalks if mappe

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Martin Koppenhoefer writes: >> Then what is the point of having path and all these other tags that overlap? > > because path and bicycle=designated is the same as highway =cycleway > > path with horse=designated is the same as highway =bridleway > > and you can also make combinations without ha

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

sent from a phone Am 06.08.2015 um 00:32 schrieb johnw : >> actually highway=footway is meant to be the same as highway=path and >> foot=designated > > > Then what is the point of having path and all these other tags that overlap? because path and bicycle=designated is the same as highway

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

> On Aug 5, 2015, at 8:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > actually highway=footway is meant to be the same as highway=path and > foot=designated > Then what is the point of having path and all these other tags that overlap? It reinforces my belief that that path’s definition is way,

Re: [Tagging] New Key capacity:*=n values

> On Aug 5, 2015, at 7:56 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > FWIW, "access" tag and subtags are generally wrong on parking lots in this > context, IMHO, what we normally want to say is that _parking_ is restricted. > Access (e.g. walking there) is typically permissive on these sites. Anywa

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

sent from a phone > Am 05.08.2015 um 15:20 schrieb geow : > > Legal > access restrictions should always be tagged properly on the individual way. +1 cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 06:20:50AM -0700, geow wrote: > geow > dieterdreist wrote > > sent from a phone > > > > Am 05.08.2015 um 12:03 schrieb Richard < > > > ricoz.osm@ > > > >: > > > >> In 2008 highway=path > >> was approved saying > >> "The default access restriction of highway=path is op

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

geow dieterdreist wrote > sent from a phone > > Am 05.08.2015 um 12:03 schrieb Richard < > ricoz.osm@ > >: > >> In 2008 highway=path >> was approved saying >> "The default access restriction of highway=path is open >>to all non-motorized vehicles, but emergency vehicles are allowed. " >

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

This isn't an argument that's ever likely to reach consensus. Use of highway=path for unmade paths, usage rights vague is unobjectionable. Use of highway=footway for made-up paths, default usage foot is unobjectionable. Other uses carry a degree of ambiguity. All we can do is document the variou

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

sent from a phone > Am 05.08.2015 um 12:52 schrieb John Willis : > > There needs a better definition between footway and path actually highway=footway is meant to be the same as highway=path and foot=designated cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailin

Re: [Tagging] New Key capacity:*=n values

sent from a phone > Am 05.08.2015 um 12:37 schrieb johnw : > > having a bit of service road in the middle of a mall render with the red > dashed lines when it can be used by “customers” who are disabled seems a > little wrong. if the road is only accessible to disabled customers it seems o

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 5, 2015, at 7:12 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > I don't see an actual problem, besides people interpreting different meanings > into the tag than what is actually documented. The "ambiguity" (or better > universality) is intentional. If you don't have the

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

sent from a phone Am 05.08.2015 um 12:03 schrieb Richard : >> Every data user who does not support highway=footpath will loose all >> paths have highway=footpath because he expect them as highway=footway or >> highway=path. That's what I call backward-incompatible. > > sure, but there are no s

Re: [Tagging] New Key capacity:*=n values

> On Aug 2, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > sent from a phone > >> Am 01.08.2015 um 14:29 schrieb John Willis : >> >> I want to say that only disabled vehicles can gain access through a barrier >> or use a parking isle. > > > access=no > disabled=yes looked up the disa

Re: [Tagging] New Key capacity:*=n values

Sorry it was a screw up. A "pocket dial” kind of thing. Javbw > On Aug 4, 2015, at 3:57 AM, John Eldredge wrote: > > What is the point of quoting someone else without adding any additional > comment? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

sent from a phone > Am 05.08.2015 um 11:25 schrieb johnw : > > So is there a way to deal with the discrepancy of =footway, =path, and a lack > of an explicit =trail option without a new =footway tag? yea. It means more > strictly defining footway and path. which people don’t want to do either

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

sent from a phone > Am 05.08.2015 um 11:25 schrieb johnw : > > The point Andy’s making is that a change in the tagging scheme, espcially a > new tag, makes everyone change all existing OSM renderers, etc - and that he > doens’t want to see meaningless or minimally useful tag changes in (popul

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:41:52PM +0200, Michael Reichert wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Am 2015-08-04 um 16:59 schrieb Richard: > > On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:43:21PM +0200, Michael Reichert wrote: > >> I fully oppose highway=footpath. This is not backward-compatible and > >> will therefore break almo

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

> On Aug 5, 2015, at 12:41 AM, Michael Reichert wrote: > > Every data user has to add highway=footpath to his style sheets, > scripts, config files etc. Please read paragraph 8 to 10 of Andy Allan's > posting at Github 1 1/2 years ago. > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues

Re: [Tagging] New Key capacity:*=n values

> On Aug 2, 2015, at 4:25 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > wrote: > > sent from a phone > >> Am 01.08.2015 um 14:29 schrieb John Willis > >: >> >> I want to say that only disabled vehicles can gain access through a barrier >> or use a parking isle. > > > access=no > disabled

Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction footway vs path

> On Aug 5, 2015, at 12:41 AM, Michael Reichert wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > Am 2015-08-04 um 16:59 schrieb Richard: >> On Sun, Aug 02, 2015 at 11:43:21PM +0200, Michael Reichert wrote: >>> I fully oppose highway=footpath. This is not backward-compatible and >>> will therefore break almost all a