Roy writes: >If "footway/cycleway is fuzzy" in terms of current usage (and I believe it is), then +1. But I would personally prefer >that "designated" mean "signed". This stays true to "mapping what is on the ground", and separates legal issues from >geographical/physical features, as others have suggested. I think this is in line with the current usage of >"designated" >(correct me if I'm wrong).
But have you seen? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated Which has solved a host of problems and ambiguities for me at least. This is a very clear - not 'fuzzy' - definition and the loss of it would be very damaging to the right-of-way mapping projects in the UK at least. It saves a lot of argument about subjective judgements of what tag best describes what is on the ground. No objection adding an extra tag for signpost if that's wanted - but it leaves ambiguities as to whether the signpost has any legal implication or whether an unsigned path (many of them!) carries legal rights of access. Mike Harris -----Original Message----- From: Roy Wallace [mailto:waldo000...@gmail.com] Sent: 13 August 2009 23:06 To: Nop Cc: talk Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Proliferation of path vs. footway On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Nop<ekkeh...@gmx.de> wrote: > > First of all, we would need to agree that there actually is a problem > and that we need to (re)define something to clarify it. There have > again been many mails along the line "It is easy and can all be done > following existing definitions - if it is done my way". But this is > simply not true, the wiki _is_ contradicting itself. +1 > Proposal #1: Unjoin designated > > Get rid of the idea that cycleway is the same thing as > bicycle=designated. Accept that foot/cycleway is fuzzy. Redefine > designated to be only used for legally dedicated ways. Likewise > seperate foot=designated from footway. If "footway/cycleway is fuzzy" in terms of current usage (and I believe it is), then +1. But I would personally prefer that "designated" mean "signed". This stays true to "mapping what is on the ground", and separates legal issues from geographical/physical features, as others have suggested. I think this is in line with the current usage of "designated" (correct me if I'm wrong). For example, in Australia you may be "legally" allowed to ride a bicycle on a footpath, but I don't think anyone would ever tag such a footpath as "bicycle=designated". You can often "legally" ride a bike on an Australian road, but again, I would never tag such a road with "bicycle=designated". > This way, foot/cycleway can be used for the lenient use cases like > today, but designated can be used to tag the strict use cases. I'd recommend highway=path with *=yes for the "lenient use cases" (which would make footway/cycleway redundant). But I've been told that highway=path has already been voted against in the past :( > Proposal #2: Introduce offical dedication > > Leave old tags as they are and accept that foot/cycleway and > designated are as fuzzy as described above. Clarify that these tags > only give information on possible use, but not about the legal situation. > Introduce a new tag biclyce/foot=official to tag the strict use case > of road-signed ways or corresponding legal dedication. I don't really see the advantage of having a fuzzy definition of "designated". I would recommend using "yes" to indicate a fuzzy "recommendation" or "suitability". And if you don't think "suitability" should be tagged, you could feel free to ignore the "*=yes" tags. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
