> 1) Re: connecting paths across small grass areas - don't mark a path > where there isn't one, and especially don't do it for the purpose of > trying to make routers work better. Map reality - that will always > work best in the long term. (just my personal preference)
IMHO accessible paths *must* be marked, because it's impossible to write a router that will guess correctly. I agree that it would be preferable not to have these hints to the router appear in the renderer, and to be distinguished somehow. I'd almost be inclined to invent a tag with a clearly whimsical name like highway=invisible_path (to avoid adding to the chaos). Or even "highway=none bicycle=yes" etc. > > 2) Re: when to use path/footway/cycleway etc. - firstly, I prefer > highway=path because it is more extensible. Any > highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway can be expressed in terms of a > highway=path with additional access tags. Yes. You have spelt out exactly what is wrong with this approach, with the terms "can be expressed...with additional...tags". Succinct is good. Semantically rich tags are good. In this way, using > highway=path can be more explicit, because of ongoing disagreements in > the definition of footway/cycleway/bridleway. > 3) Re: what does <TAG> really mean? - rather than everyone giving > their personal opinion on e.g. what highway=path means, for new users > I would strongly recommend reading the wiki carefully and using that. The wiki (in my perusal thus far) suffers from a lack of consistency and a lack of authority. There's nowhere that says "THIS is what a path is, and nothing else". Like Wikipedia's policies, for example. Steve _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
