Dave Stubbs wrote: > Gotcha. Excepth that, assuming you /can/ walk on it, that's what the > rest of us have been using highway=footway for since the dawn of time > (well, dawn of map features maybe. well, last couple of years at > least). > > If it happened to have another purpose (ie: bikes or horses) then it > got upgraded to cycleway or bridleway. > > If that's not what you thought highway=footway meant then I guess the > docs for highway=footway need updating (again).
>From Tag:highway=footway: "For designated footpaths, i.e. mainly/exclusively for pedestrians." That is a perfectly reasonable definition in my opinion. However, I see a distinction among "intended for", "allowed", and "not forbidden". So it really depends on interpretation. In particular, footways have a particular legal status in the UK which doesn't apply to every place that you can walk. And even in the US there's a difference between "a path" and "a path built specifically for people to walk on". > So that means 2 to 9 are fully covered by the existing map features > (ie: footway/cycleway/bridleway/track/service) 2-4: clearly not mainly/exclusively for pedestrians, since it's not for anything in particular. It's just a path; certainly no cycleway or bridleway, even though bicycles and horses don't appear to be forbidden. 5: it's a cycleway and a footway. Calling it only one of those gives a priority which doesn't exist. That problem is fixed with the "designated" value for access. 6: the purpose of the path is impossible to determine. All we can see is what is forbidden. We can perhaps hope that horses and bicycles are allowed to use it, I guess. It's still not a bridleway. 7,8: covered by f/c/b 9: again, we can't tell what it's for, just what's forbidden. Definitely not a bridleway since horses are forbidden. Not a cycleway either though, since it's not /for/ bicycles. Aside: I don't think track/service matter at all for this purpose. > Nonsensical is a matter of opinion clearly. > You can't just say things are nonsensical and hope that means > something. It happens to make perfect sense. You might not like it, > and there might be a better way, but that's not really the same thing. OK, perhaps "nonsensical" was too strong. "Against the intent of the highway tag" certainly, and I'd add "defeating the purpose of the access series of tags" as well. I hope you agree with my point that the legal accessibility of a way doesn't belong in the highway key, especially when we have a separate key for it. -Alex Mauer "hawke" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
