On 03/05/12 21:34, Andy Street wrote: > So you are saying that we should tag paths by who uses them but not do > the same for tracks. IMHO that is rather inconsistent.
Not quite. I'm advancing that one should classify according to the primary use or build when one has sufficient evidence. Schemes using a smaller number of tags to describe an object are preferable if we're writing documentation for new mappers. By the way, h=track is also applied according to a way's primary use or build. The tag is documented as normally being for minor vehicular field access, agricultural use or forest management, and it is also given that they are commonly unpaved and that they are roads. >> No. Designation tags imply nothing in OSM right now, as currently >> documented, and by design IIRC. Also, I refer you to the recent mailing >> list post regarding other countries and what they might mean by >> "designation=public_footpath". > > So if I told you there was a way in Hampshire tagged highway=path, > designation=public_footpath you'd have no idea if you could walk it? Obviously I would, but how does what one person can infer matter for the general case? I would say that it is not tagged sufficiently to allow generic data consumers which do not have special knowledge of what that local designation=public_footpath means to determine whether it can be walked legally. Big difference. I would also say that tagging it highway=footway, designation=public_footpath instead would say more about the usage or build, but not much more. >> If >> it's not a made cycleway or something used by horse riders, then that >> leaves footway by exclusion in this country, or no mappable path at all. > > Which would have us tagging things as highway=footway, > designation=public_bridleway or highway=bridleway, > designation=public_footpath! I fail to see any problem here. There are plenty of public footpaths out there which are well-used private horse gallops, and not every public bridleway has a predominance of horse rider traffic. > Perhaps you'd like to tell me how I should map this (and why): > > http://andystreet.me.uk/osm/canyouguesswhatitisyet.jpg Not really, no. Your mapping is your business except where it directly conflicts with mine, at which point we would have to come to a suitable agreement. On a more practical note, there's not really enough of a view of the ground to determine what those tracks are or even what the surface is, I've almost not visited it myself, and you've purposefully obscured the waymarker, hiding the official intent behind the way's existence. Perhaps you should be asking me how I would tag such a thing based on the available evidence. -- Andrew Chadwick _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
