Tom I agree with you!
Mike Harris -----Original Message----- From: Tom Chance [mailto:t...@acrewoods.net] Sent: 10 August 2009 10:31 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway Hi there, I'm 100% unclear about the distinction between highway=path and highway=footway. Paths and footways, which seem to be used for the same sorts of ways by different mappers, both show up differently on the main map. The Mapnik and ti...@home stylesheets have quite enough different way styles already, adding more just makes it even harder for your average user to interpret. So I think it’s important that we define the difference more clearly and apply it more consistently. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dpath The wiki page above, and the voting page for the proposal, suggest that highway=path should be used where you don’t really think footway, cycleway, bridleway, track and others are suitable. But then it suggests using highway=path with a subset of tags in place of highway=bridleway, which contradicts the first explanation. I can only think of a few circumstances where I wouldn’t just opt for footway – little unofficial paths here and there in parks, across small bits of grass in towns and in the countryside. But I’ve seen path crop up in lots of situations where the other highway tags would be good enough. Which is it to be? Regards, Tom _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
