On 14/04/19 01:42, Volker Schmidt wrote:
I am not happy with the assumption that a path on the map without
indication that it is open to the public is better than not having it
on the map at all.
If I am navigating using a paper map then that road/path is usefull
information. If it is not on the map then I still don't know if I have
access but additionally I don't know where it goes or how far I have come.
So even when the access is not known having thepath/road there is
usefull to me.
This is only true if the former is labelled as such (access=unknown).
Otherwise its useless information. Think about it: You wouldn't think
for a moment about inserting a road (for cars) without knowing it is
open for the intended traffic, would you?
I am frequently using routing for bicycle and, unfortunately, I note
that there are many more access status errors on paths/footways/tracks
in the map than for roads for motorized traffic.
If we as OSM community want to make use of our potentially better
coverage for foot and bicycle traffic, then we need to improve our
mapping quality for minor highways.
Another thing:
Greg writes:
" "highway=footway" has exactly the same
semantics as "highway=path foot=designated". ...Note that both leave
bicycle and horse as
implicit"
I think this is wrong: highway=footway excludes bicycle, or at least
the footway wiki page is misleading, as the photo shows clearly a
footway with a traffic sign, that explicitly excludes all other types
of traffic.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free. www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 at 18:41, Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com
<mailto:g...@lexort.com>> wrote:
Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net
<mailto:rich...@systemed.net>> writes:
> Volker Schmidt wrote:
>> "highway=path" implies "bicycle=yes" (in most jurisdictions) -
see the
>> proposed Default-Access-Restriction for all countries
>
> That's not a default that I feel enormously comfortable with.
Whatever the
> wiki might say, "bare" highway=path (no other tags) is often
used for little
> footpaths across city parks, sidewalks, and so on.
>
> cycle.travel <http://cycle.travel> errs on the side of caution
and therefore doesn't route along
> highway=path unless there's an explicit access tag (or cycle route
> relation).
>
> Keeping bicycle=yes on bikes-allowed paths is useful
information. If there's
> no bicycle= tag, yes, it could mean "bike access is implied by a
default
> somewhere on the wiki" but it could also mean "this way is tagged
> incompletely". Deleting the tags would remove information and
make it harder
> for routers to deliver real-world routing results. Please keep them.
Strongly seconded. Richard has it 100% right here, and has
explained it
very well. I would consider removing bicycle=yes from highway=path to
be damaging and antisocial.
As far as path having some legal definition of access rules, I
would say
that's very far off base in the US, as paths are usually on places
where
the property owner (even if the government) can set rules, as
opposed to
streets which are owned by the government where access is
controlled by
statute, more or less. It is very normal for paths in
conservation land
in the forest to allow only foot travel, or also bicycle, or also
horse
and bicycle both.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
