>What exactly are we trying to achieve with highway=byway? I can think of >two possible uses but both seem to have unresolved issues.
>The first is simply to record that a particular way exists and has >certain access rights. In this instance I don't see highway=byway being >any different to highway=track, foot=yes, bicycle=yes, horse=yes, >motorcycle=yes, motorcar=yes and the latter would probably make more >sense to non-uk people. >The second is to record the exact legal classification of the way as a >byway rather than another entity with similar access permissions e.g. a >"Green Lane" (marked with green dots on OS maps with the key: "Other >routes with public access"). In this case the current practise of >tagging motorcar=no to indicate a restricted byway is insufficient as >this afternoon I walked along a BOAT that had also had a traffic order >preventing use by motorcars. >I'm personally starting to favour tagging byways as highway=track with >the appropriate access permissions in the same way that the map features >page now defines highway=footpath as highway=path, foot=yes. The only >issue I can see is that we would need to add a horsedrawn access tag to >differentiate between bridleways and restricted byways. I have to say I agree 100% with this, though I think we need to reach a consensus before changing the way we tag. Nick _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk