Tasmania: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2369652
There seems to be only a single default key defined for Tasmania currently: "def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes There are no default values defined on Australia: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/80500 Now, it’s worth pointing out that the proposal that this tagging scheme is based on: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Defaults a. Never went through RFC or voting b. Envisions that the def tags are placed on a separate type=defaults relation which is then a member of role defaults of the boundary relation, instead of being applied directly to the boundary relation as we have done. As such it is exceedingly unlikely that any type of data consumer is actually using them. Nonetheless, that proposal represents the only attempt I’m aware of to actually define defaults inside the OSM database instead of simply throwing your hands up in the air and shout “Who knows? Whatever..” So really, in reality, defaults are whatever the developer of every single data consumer decided. Our choices come down to: a) Just shrug and let all data consumers and mappers make up their mind on their own b) At least attempt to somehow write down on the wiki what defaults mappers should assume, and data consumers hopefully accept c) use (and extend use of) that somewhat unwieldy def: syntax to make our wishes in regards to defaults explicit in the database. It would at least allow us to point to it and say “see, we explicitly and in a machine readable form recorded our assumed defaults,” if any data consumer asks. For the other states and territories, currently defined defaults are: SA: <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316596> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316596 "def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes WA: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316598 "def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes NT: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316594 "def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes Qld: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316595 "def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes NSW: <https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316593> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316593 "def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=no "def:highway=living_street;maxspeed"=10 "def:highway=residential;maxspeed"=50 Vic: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2316741 "def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=no ACT: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2354197 "def:highway=footway;access:bicycle"=yes Jervis Bay Territory: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2357330 none From: Phil Wyatt <p...@wyatt-family.com> Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 20:46 To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; 'OSM-Au' <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: RE: [talk-au] Path versus Footway Hi Thorsten, Is there somewhere to view those defaults for Tasmania? I assume its not usually editable by mappers? Cheers - Phil From: <mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au < <mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 9:00 PM To: 'OSM-Au' < <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway 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> 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 < <mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com> graemefi...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2022 17:32 To: Phil Wyatt < <mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> p...@wyatt-family.com> Cc: <mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au; OSM-Au < <mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> 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
