Hey All, This is a very interesting discussion - wish I'd spotted it a bit earlier.
My primary interest as someone-adding-to-OSM is places I can / can't walk, so this discussion definitely affects the walking routes/paths I (feel I am) looking after in/around South Bucks. I always use Potlatch an editor, and so the majority of the paths I have added are highway=footpath, unless I know it's designated as a bridleway in which case I've set it as highway=bridleway. If I use a path, but it's not actually signed as a public or otherwise footpath then I think I should use highway=path, but actually tend to just use highway=footpath as it's there for me in Potlatch. Semantically it feels cleaner to use highway=path/track/service depending on width and condition (a tarmac'd driveway I tag as service, a muddy path that is wide enough to fit a car is a track for me, narrower is just a path) and *then* adding designation tags e.g. public_footpath or permissive_footpath (as is around the Hampden estate). In my experience around Bucks, walkers, cyclists and horse riders all use the same paths, so I only add specific access tags when it is a 'NO' (as in a few "no cycles" signs around here, against mostly in the Hampden Estate area). My dilemma is that essentially all of my walking routes so far are highway=footpath / highway=bridleway with very little designation= (because I haven't done much mapping since I saw designation= being discussed), so changing to a combination of path/track/service & designation would be quite a chunk of work. I'm up for doing it, if that's a good thing to do. Is there any consensus on whether this is a good thing to do or not (yet)? If it is a good thing, then I'd love to see Potlatch updated somehow to allow for this (perhaps changing "footpath" to be highway=path & adding "public footpath" with highway=path/designation=public_footway), and would be up for doing that piece of work if that helps, as it would really help me. On a minor tangent - is there any pattern or spec around tagging the signposts at all? I'm starting to think it would be useful, as not all junctions have sign posts, and so it could help people know which junction is which when on a new walk. I had a quick search on the wiki, but couldn't find anything (I could be searching for the wrong thing). Oh, and I've just spotted the Google Doc, so will try to add my thoughts to that if I get some free time later on. Hope this makes sense, Adam On 12 May 2012, at 09:21, 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. > > Just to make it clear, I'm not proposing rejecting edits containing > designation > tags, or anything like that - just encouraging people to use them where known. > >> Most of the general public don't know or care, or just bimble along >> anything with tarmac whether it's marked "footpath" or not. > > I can see that in towns, though I have to admit being a little surprised that > out in the country, people aren't > aware of path designations. > >> Experts can set additional access tags if they want and need to. IMO the >> full sets for a particular designation are a pain to remember, large, >> demonstrably quite difficult to understand in combination, and easy to >> get wrong. > > Only two are really essential, though, I think, highway plus designation. > foot|bicycle|horse=permissive are nice too, to indicate permissive paths, > but not as essential as designation. > > Nick > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
