On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Tagwatch suggests that surface=paved, unpaved, gravel, cobblestone, ground
> and grass
> are the most common values (those with over 10k uses).
> cheers
> Richard
>
>
(This was in response to my assertion that surface was unrenderable)
Th
Richard Mann wrote:
> The surface key is unusable for practical rendering - it's too detailed.
The surface page on the wiki has been hijacked by the usual
wiki-gardening suspects. Tagwatch, as ever, is a much better guide:
http://tagwatch.stoecker.eu/Europe/En/tags.html
It suggests that pave
>I see no reason for paths to be tagged differently just because they are
>in an urban or rural setting, but then I find highway=footway intensely
>irritating! Why footway exists but a tag for public footpaths doesn't
>is frankly beyond me.
It kind of does, the "designation" tag has been mentione
On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Al Girling wrote:
> Why footway exists but a tag for public footpaths doesn't
> is frankly beyond me.
Because you're reading too much into the name. All the highway tags
were initially made up to end in '...way'. So forget you're ideas of
what a "footway" or a "f
To clarify, I was suggesting using highway=path for unmade or roughly-made
footpaths, and highway=footway for made-up footpaths. Muddy paths would be
highway=path whether they are in the countryside or between houses.
There is a strong correlation between whether a path is made up and it's
urban/r
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 12:42:46PM BST, Richard Mann wrote:
>
> *** I would like feedback/discussion on this particular point - whether
> urban made-up and rural unmade footpaths should be tagged distinctively ***
I see no reason for paths to be tagged differently just because they are
in an urba
Richard Mann wrote:
> *** I would like feedback/discussion on this particular point - whether
> urban made-up and rural unmade footpaths should be tagged distinctively ***
They should receive different _sets_ of tags. But they are both
instances of highway=footway if they happen to be signposted.
On 03/04/09 13:43, Gregory Williams wrote:
-Original Message-
From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-
boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of David Earl
Sent: 3 April 2009 13:02
To: Richard Mann
Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using "hi
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, David Earl wrote:
> FWIW, I agree largely with the specific points on your wiki page, but I don't
> think it will happen because of the effort involved.
The wiki page wasn't really supposed to be a "this is how it needs to be"
solution - the hope was to get people talking ab
On 03/04/2009 14:11, Steve Hill wrote:
> However, mistake or not, we have what we have and making fundamental
> changes doesn't seem especially likely (I have in the past made
> suggestions regarding the fundamental data structure and have been met
> with nothing but sarcastic replies and put-do
>Having some time on my hands at the moment, I'm trying to get my head
round some of the inconsistencies/duplications/gaps in the usage of the
>highway key. Having looked at the recent widescale adoption of
"highway=path" in Germany it is clearly fulfilling a need. I'm coming to
the view that >
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Ed Loach wrote:
> I'm beginning personally to think that
> highway= were all a mistake and that
> highway=path and designation=public_footpath/etc, along with
> suitable access keys (foot, bicycle, etc) would have been a better
> starting point
I think even that is a bit too h
Ed Loach wrote:
> Indeed you can have designated public footpaths that pass through
> urban areas
Like this one?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=51.23497&mlon=-0.59355&zoom=17&layers=B000FTF
--
Jonathan (Jonobennett)
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Ta
I'm beginning personally to think that
highway= were all a mistake and that
highway=path and designation=public_footpath/etc, along with
suitable access keys (foot, bicycle, etc) would have been a better
starting point - there would certainly be fewer debates where things
are currently less than cl
gt; > boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of David Earl
> > Sent: 3 April 2009 13:02
> > To: Richard Mann
> > Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using "highway=path" for country
> > footpaths
> >
> > Well, you kno
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, David Earl wrote:
> In highway engineering terms in the UK a "footway" is always alongside a
> road, and we don't tend to mark those separately anyway.
This is a slightly separate issue, but not marking them is a bit of a
problem in some cases because we end up with things li
> -Original Message-
> From: talk-gb-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-gb-
> boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of David Earl
> Sent: 3 April 2009 13:02
> To: Richard Mann
> Cc: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Possibly using "highway=pat
On 03/04/2009 12:42, Richard Mann wrote:
> *** I would like feedback/discussion on this particular point - whether
> urban made-up and rural unmade footpaths should be tagged distinctively ***
Given we already have a separate tag for surface, I don't see the
distinction.
In highway engineering
Folks,
Having some time on my hands at the moment, I'm trying to get my head round
some of the inconsistencies/duplications/gaps in the usage of the highway
key. Having looked at the recent widescale adoption of "highway=path" in
Germany it is clearly fulfilling a need. I'm coming to the view that
19 matches
Mail list logo
