On 11 May 2012 11:59, Andrew Chadwick <a.t.chadw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/05/12 10:45, Nick Whitelegg wrote: > > Sorry but I do have to say this. In an area (UK outside of Scotland) > > where sadly, you're not free to roam where you like, access rights are > > *absolutely vital detail* for walkers and other users of the countryside > > and indicating them explicitly where known, either via designation, or > > foot/horse/bicycle = (designated/yes - the two I consider equivalent), > > permissive or private is essential. They should only be left out where > > they are not known. > > Yes, but no. Yes I agree that it's information we should gather, and > anyone more into this thing than a casual mapper probably should. > However in order to broaden OSM's appeal we can't demand it at the entry > level. Particularly if there are no handy buttons for it in Potlatch. > I could equally claim that information on the surface of paths is absolutely essential for cyclists with road bikes, and that toilet opening hours are absolutely essential for people with weak bladders. In many areas OSM is completely hopeless at accurate routing for cars, motorbikes, HGVs, but we don't stop people adding roads unless they've got every last routing detail correct. Of course more detail is useful, and we can gently encourage and facilitate that through presets in editors and documentation on the wiki. But we shouldn't demand that anybody helpfully adding a footpath or toilet add in every last detail. Regards, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
