Hi Graeme,
That’s correct – however the defaults can be set on very specific tags (def:highway=footway;access:bicycle=no) and if absolutely necessary even down to within a single park/reserve/area/track rather than a blanket ruling. It would get very fiddly at that degree of detail. That’s why my initial enquiry was very specific about ‘tracks for exclusive use by walkers’ as I knew that it quickly gets murky when you start and get into bikes, horse, 4WD’s etc, let alone ebike and escooters (don’t even go there!!) 😊 Cheers - Phil From: Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefi...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, 4 February 2022 10:06 AM To: osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au Cc: OSM-Au <talk-au@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [talk-au] Path versus Footway On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 at 19:32, <osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au <mailto:osm.talk...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote: I assume these National parks where different rules are in effect have a boundary relation. In which case it would be possible to either: a) tag a def: directly on that boundary relation with the rules that apply or (maybe better in this case) b) create a type=defaults relation “Tasmania National Parks Defaults” with all the defaults that apply in national parks, then add that relation to any national park boundary relation where it applies as member with the role of defaults (b) is basically following the defaults proposal exactly, and allows to define the defaults once and the re-use them for all national parks. A problem with that would be that in a number of cases that I know of, you can ride a bike along the roads into the National Park, but you can't then take your bike onto the walking tracks, so a Park-wide default may not work? Thanks Graeme
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
