On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 14:32 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote: > On 03/05/12 21:34, Andy Street wrote: > >> 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?
It just demonstrates my point that tagging in this manner provides sufficient information to draw such conclusions without the need to clutter up the highway tag. > 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. I'd agree that generic consumers will struggle with highway=path, designation=* but that is a wider OSM issue and not limited to the path/footway, etc. debate. Anyone using OSM data should be pre-processing it to take into account local laws/customs and their particular use case. For example, you are probably going to come a cropper if you go around assuming that roads across the globe without an explicit maxspeed tag all have the same default value. I also fail to see how highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway would help here either. Looking at this[1] wiki page shows all manner of different default permissions dependent on different geographical regions. The only way I can see to completely eradicate this problem would be a full set of access tags (foot=*, horse=*, etc) on every way but that is not something either of us would find desirable. > >> 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. I thought you were trying to simplify things for newbies. Giving them two values which appear to contradict each other isn't going to help. > > 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. My point here was that a large percentage of the time it can be nigh on impossible to tell a footpath from a bridleway based on physical characteristics alone. I know from previous experience that horses use that path but when I visited there was absolutely no indication (other than the waymarker) of their use. If we tag highway based on designation alone then all we are doing is duplicating data and had I been visiting for the first time using your "tag for the primary user" rule then I'd assume highway=footway, which would be incorrect. I'm not anti highway=footway/bridleway and have tagged a large number of ways with them in the past. I simply feel that the richer tagging scheme that has evolved since their introduction has made them redundant. What does peeve me though is the attitude that highway=path is somehow wrong and we shouldn't tell newbies about it in case they get into bad habits. Cheers, Andy P.S. It would appear that this thread is at risk of turning into a difference of opinions between two individuals rather than a discussion amongst the wider community. Out of consideration for the other users of this list I will therefore not be making any further replies to this thread. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
