Richard Z. wrote > ... > I would leave it alone and introduce highway=footpath which would be a > variant > of path for pedestrians, not suited or permitted for horses and vehicles > unless > otherwise tagged and expected to be more demanding than footways. > ...
@Richard - I wouldn't even dream of that ;-) Actually - do we really need 5 or even 6 highway types for non motorized traffic? Wouldn't it be better to use the universal and compatible "highway=path" along with specific and unmistakable attributes for physical and access properties. That way we could replace all highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway keys. The mess as you described it, was partly caused by mixing physical tags and assumed access-restrictions in these traditional keys. geow -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/highway-footway-Advanced-definition-Distinction-footway-vs-path-tp5851506p5851515.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
