John Smith <delta_foxt...@yahoo.com> writes: > --- On Wed, 12/8/09, James Livingston <doc...@mac.com> wrote: > >> Going the other way and not having highway=footway imply >> any value for >> bicycle would mean that people like me could tag something >> as a >> footway and say that I don't know whether it's suitable for >> cycling on >> by leaving the bicycle= out. > > It's most likely going to have to be jurisdiction specific, not just > country specific in some instances. Going the other way and dealing > with footway for example, NSW & Vic doesn't allow cyclists on > footpaths, but ACT does.
This is a major philosophical issue for OSM. I think it would be really
nice if there were a consistent scheme so that one could interpret what
was reasonable/allowed from tags alone without needing to know which way
local defaults to. To some extent we are relying on similar traffic
laws in enough countries to declare a default, and to expect places
where those defaults are not true to tag as exceptions.
In the case of cycleway, the global norm seems to be that pedestrians
are permitted. But we have to do either
define a default for each jurisdiction
AND
encode the default in the map with polygons
OR
have some table for renderers)
OR
define a global default
AND
tag all ways with exceptions to the global default
I also don't understand the comments about "no default". If we said
that highway=cycleway implied
horse=no
bicycle=yes
foot=yes
then one would add tags if the reality is different (bicycle=designated
if there are signs or some legal designation, foot=no if pedestrians are
not allowed). But if there is "no default" for foot, then what is
routing software to do? If it uses the way, the default is yes, and if
doesn't, it's no. So the notion of no default does not make at lot of
sense to me.
I still don't see how this bears on cycleway/footway vs path (except
that I do see the point that we have a human problem where humans think
they know what cycleway means but they are being fuzzy).
With highway=path, the wiki page does not give the semantics when there
are no tags. For highway=path and no tags, is that horse=yes or
horse=no? Is it paved or not if there is no tag?
The biggest problem is that there needs to be an unambiguous mapping
From these highway=foo tags to the implied value of the access subtags.
The next biggest is non-operational semi-circular definitions like
'highway=cycleway' being for 'designated cycleways' which talk about
'intent', although in practice one would ask (in en_US) "do most people
think this is a bike path".
Maybe we'll end up with a definition of bridleway, cycleway and footway
in terms of path, with the notion that cycleway and footway are paved,
and path is unpaved if not otherwise tagged.
pgpAQDvojg0iI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
