Andy Allan wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Cartinus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> So to sum it up: Do the ways currently tagged with "bridleway" conform to >> your >> narrow definition or is there already no data to loose, because it is already >> use for ways which are physically, but not legally paths for horses. > > I would consider all the existing tagging as of suspect > interpretation. For example, foot=yes is almost entirely meaningless > as "right of pedestrian access enshrined in law" since it's been added > by default to every highway=footway in potlatch for some time.
Agreed. I would expect that all the access tags have that problem, not just foot. I don't think the "yes" value has ever been defined in that manner, so I'm certain it's been applied to routes which are not rights-of-way. I know I've always understood "yes" to mean that "[vehicle type]s are capable of traversing this route, and are not forbidden to use it." Certainly nothing currently in the wiki appears to contradict that. I'm also quite certain that footway/cycleway/bridleway have been applied to routes which do not follow the UK definition. (In other words, there is already no right-of-way data to lose). -Alex Mauer "hawke" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
