And I would be tempted to tag it highway=footway graffiti=yes I am beginning to think cycleway gets added by eager cyclists far more often than should really happen.
Jason Cunningham user:jamicu 2009/9/10 Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:59 PM, James Livingston <doc...@mac.com> wrote: > > > > I don't really want to get into this argument again, but I believe > > that either we're going to end up with local rules for the access > > mappings, or some regions are going to have to tag every single > > cycleway/footway with overrides. > > There is another option: The characteristics of *paths* should be > tagged only as they exist *on the ground* - that is, surface, width, > lanes, *signage*. Local laws should be known by the locals (and > tourists should use the "I'm a tourist, Officer" + "but the sign > didn't say I couldn't X here" excuse). I know this is probably > controversial, but I think it is one way to define the scope to avoid > some problems, and also enforces verifiability. > > > Personally, I think the former is > > better because it's a lot less work and there are going to be other > > things that need local interpretations - such as whether > > highway=residential should be practically treated as > > access=destination for the purposes of vehicle routing. > > Nah, I think access=destination roads should be marked as > access=destination (when they are signed as such, as they are in, e.g. > Brisbane, Australia). > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
