On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 6:08 AM, <j...@talk21.com> wrote: > I have a strong feeling that this would be unacceptable. We need to know > about different types of path and road. Just knowing that they're suitable > for bicycles or for motor traffic isn't enough. Such dumbing-down of the > data to meet a lowest common denominator is something I believe we should be > avoiding like the plague.
I'm pretty sure no one was suggesting this (i.e. removing information). It's the way the information in entered in tags that is being discussed. The fact is that we currently have highway=cycleway;foot=yes AND highway=footway;cycle=yes, and it is difficult to choose which is appropriate for a particular shared-use path. We also ALREADY have highway=path, which is for "non-specific or shared-use" paths. This makes the above two tagging combinations redundant. I would therefore suggest at least changing the highway=cycleway and highway=footway descriptions from "mainly/exclusively" to "exclusively" - and preferably getting rid of them altogether. > All paths marked are shared paths, but one side of the creek is much more > suitable for cycling than the other. And this is because of the > significantly different physical properties of the paths themselves. Please describe the "significantly different physical properties", and see if they can be described by adding tags to a highway=path. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au