That table is just the suggested defaults.
We actually have default values specified on the state boundaries currently I think using the format specified here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Defaults I think. Any use of explicit access tags will override defaults. There isn’t really a fully accepted way used by all data consumers to specify defaults in OSM currently. So at the end, it really comes down to whatever defaults any particular data consumer applies. As long as you explicitly tag access, any type of path, foot/cycle/bridle-way can be made to reflect whatever you want. From: Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 17:32 To: Phil Wyatt <p...@wyatt-family.com> Cc: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; OSM-Au <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway On Wed, 2 Feb 2022 at 17:24, Phil Wyatt <p...@wyatt-family.com <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > wrote: So reading from that chart and in regard to my query about ‘tracks that are exclusively for foot traffic’ you would say it can ONLY be a footway? By that list, yes? Thanks Graeme
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
