On 21 Aug 2012, at 17:56, Rob Nickerson wrote: > > Adam Wrote: > >It's totally confused me, so in the bit of UK countryside I edit I have > >added tons of ways with highway=footway tags through woods, fields etc, when > >in fact I am pretty sure they should really be highway=path tags. I realised > >this a little while ago, so this thread is timely. > > > >Do please correct me if I'm still confused as I'm slowly going through the > >process of re-tagging them from footway to path. > > Hi Adam, > > As noted on here many times and also reflected on the UK Tagging guidelines > page [1] there isn't consensus on whether a countryside 'route' should be > tagged as a path or a footway. The key thing is (if it is signed as a public > footpath) then tag it with designation=public_footpath. Other than that, I > would advise looking at what others are doing in the local area. Here for > example, the major paths are tagged as highway=footway, and the minor paths > (ones that don't look quite as official but it is clear that people walk on > them), tend to be tagged highway=path. > > There does seem to be a consensus that highway=track is usually wider than > highway=path (and is probably wide enough to drive a tractor/4wd down). > > Regards, > Rob > > [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Tagging_Guidelines
Hi Rob, I used to tag the major paths as footway and the minor paths as paths, to differentiate official paths and unofficial paths, but that was a really cack workaround to not having designation=public_footpath, so I'm happier now that the designation tag exists. Speaking of the which, anyone have any idea when the designation tag will be rendered on the main OSM renderer (or even in Potlatch which would do me in the short term). Best, Adam
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
