Hi, I'm a bit cautious about using highway=no for rights of way. I understand it where a definitive route is utterly impassible on the ground (eg. goes through a building) but elsewhere it seems to be suggested as a bit of a fudge to avoid having one right of way represented by two highways in OSM. I find that problematic for several reasons:
- Most data consumers won't be expecting this highly country-specific tagging of highway=no so it's likely that end users will be using mapping products which lead them along informal shortcuts and diversions whilst completely omitting the actual line of the right of way. - We're tagging ways based on the presence of an alternative rather than the qualities of the way itself. For example, if a definitive path has no physical presence along its whole length but the original mapper has deviated from the definitive line for a short portion in the middle of the path's length, the definitive line would go from being tagged as a highway to being tagged as highway=no and back again despite no change in its appearance or accessibility, just the existence of an alternative route. - It means using highway=no to represent the legally-defined route of a highway which the public have a right to use just seems a little bizarre to me. In any case highway=no seems a particularly problematic thing to map remotely without actually being on the ground. We can't simply assume the non-existence of one route based upon the existence of an alternative. That one GPS-carrying osm mapper took one line across a moor which differs slightly from the definitive route doesn't mean we can say that the definitive line is any less legitimate. The fact that a mapper mapped a route round a field or farmyard doesn't mean that others don't follow the official line though it. Kind regards, Adam On Mon, 4 May 2020, 20:24 Andy Allan, <gravityst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 20:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) > <robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 14:13, nathan case <nathanc...@outlook.com> wrote: > > > Thanks for your input Robert, the approach taken for routes not > following the definitive line makes sense - though does this lead to two > paths being rendered? Or does highway=no prevent this? I will also add the > fixme as Tony suggests. > > > > I'd be surprised if any map renders this as a highway. > > I've seen maps from a multi-billion-dollar-revenue organisation that > were rendering anything with a highway tag the same as their most > minor road style. So I think it was a case of rendering highway=* as a > small road, and then adding additional rules for specific highway > values to show them as larger roads. > > Very few people would make this mistake since it's a pretty obvious > problem that will show up quickly, but I do wonder how many people use > a specific list of road values and then draw everything else as paths. > In that case, there's a risk of highway=no showing up as a path. > > Thanks, > Andy > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
