On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 03:47:08PM +0000, David Woolley wrote: > On 08/12/2020 15:11, nathan case wrote: > > I am interested as a path I recently mapped is a PROW but is very dangerous > > to cross. It is now marked as disused:highway=path with > > access=discourged;designated but it is stilla PROW (byway open to all > > traffic in this case):https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/93427676 > > In that example, "Cross Bay Walk - DO NOT ATTEMPT" violates "name is only > the name". It may or may not be possible to justify "Cross Bay Walk", but > the "DO NOT ATTEMPT" is not going to be a valid part of the name. Given the recent thread, it is odd that it has "warning=hazard" rather than hazard=yes or something more specific.
> Unless there is a sign saying "unsuitable for pedestrinnoans, horses, and > vehicles", or similar, I would say "access=discouraged" violates "do not tag > for the renderer". The wiki specifically says that an official sign is > required before using "access=discouraged". This seems to be taking things far too far. We *should* tag for the user! Equating subjective with "there isn't a sign" is also pushing things too far. We are trying to make OSM the best map we can. Tagging dangerous or non-existant paths in a way that ordinary users/routers cannot distinguish is just plain wrong and irresponsible. I am all in favour of tagging PROWs even where there is nothing on the ground, but in a way distinct from "proper" paths/ways. Agreed: do not tag for the renderer, but do tag for the user. ael _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
