-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 OJ W wrote: | Are there any use-cases for keeping the legal designations of | rights-of-way (aware that this is very UK-specific..) | | e.g. perhaps someone wants to use our maps to check that all the | rights of way in their area are properly accessible. Or someone using | an OSM map is challenged by a landowner and 'the map says I'm | permitted to herd sheep along this path' | | we seem to have lost 'public footpath' information already by using | the same 'footway' tag for anywhere that you appear to be able to walk | nevermind if there's a footpath sign at the end. proposals like this | might make 'real bridleways' disappear too, into a mix of places that | at first glance seem passable by horse-riders
Perhaps we should tag them legal=footpath/bridleway/whatever | (p.s. before just proposing a new tag for legal status, consider that | lots of existing bridleways/footpaths/byways will have already been | tagged based on the RoW signs and we might want to keep that | information) Yes, but lots have been tagged not based on legal status, and we don't want to misrepresent those. It's better to have no data than wrong data on a way. Robert (Jamie) Munro -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkguvKQACgkQz+aYVHdncI2oCgCfaAgpf3RL4tHolDoJcdF6iVYO kpwAn3vrWTFoVYReKNhi7AP6NTV2WEoh =arHg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
