On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, David Earl wrote:
> In highway engineering terms in the UK a "footway" is always alongside a
> road, and we don't tend to mark those separately anyway.
This is a slightly separate issue, but not marking them is a bit of a
problem in some cases because we end up with things like foot bridges
which are unconnected at both ends because there is no separate footway
marked along the side of the road. I'm not really going to comment on
what the "best practice" is for this case at the moment, just pointing out
that it can be a problem.
> I just don't see the distinction between a muddy metre wide path that
> happens to run between houses from one that doesn't. And if it is
> surfaced, we have a means to say so already.
I've got to agree with this. I missed the discussion when the
highway=path tag was agreed, but I have never really seen the need for it.
If it is something I can walk along then it's a footway - I don't much
care whether it is in an urban area or on the top of a cliff in the middle
of nowhere, none of that changes what I can do on the way (i.e. walk).
> Well, you know my view on this. A cycleway is a cycleway if it is signed
> as a cycleway, not because it appears to be constructed to a standard
> that happens to be suitable for carrying bikes. Likewise bridleway,
> which in the UK permits cyclists to use it (by default).
Also, there's a legal distinction between cycleways and footways to think
about - it is illegal to cycle on a footway, and similarly if you were
walking on a designated cycleway I suspect the courts might not look
at you favourably if you were hit by a bike (especially if there's a
perfectly good footway following a similar route). So marking up a way as
a cycleway just because it _looks_ suitable for bikes is not a sensible
move.
In some cases a track is both a footway and a cycleway (often with a line
down the middle to separate the cyclists and pedestrians). I'm not sure
of the best way to tag this - do we tag it as a footway with cyclists
allowed, a cycleway with pedestrians allowed, mark up 2 independent ways
next to eachother, or something completely different? (it is a good
argument for not using the single "highway" tag to describe the legal
properties of a way, such as "footway" or "cycleway", where it may
actually be both).
> And where did this arbitrary 2m come from? That would mean some signed
> cycleways in Cambridge wouldn't be marked as such because they are wider
> than 2m. Perhaps you are trying somehow to distinguish between a
> specially constructed cycleway and a road which has been converted for
> cycle use. But in my mind that's just a wider cycleway.
And indeed, people can already use the "width" tag to signify how wide the
cycleway is - what it was historically used for is not important for most
renderings of the map. There may be merrit in marking up the historical
use through other tags, e.g. something like "highway=cycleway,
historically:railway=rail" or similar for a disused railway line that is
now a designated cycleway, but that is another discussion - I don't
believe what an object used to be should have any real bearing on the
mainstream tags.
Unless someone can explain to me a really good reason for using "path"
instead of "footway", I really don't much feel like having to resurvey all
the footways around here...
- Steve
xmpp:st...@nexusuk.org sip:st...@nexusuk.org http://www.nexusuk.org/
Servatis a periculum, servatis a maleficum - Whisper, Evanescence
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
