Richard Mann wrote: > On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 5:36 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer > <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: >> ...routers would lead pedestrians in areas where they are not allowed to >> walk (cycleways). > > Nonsense. There'll be a footway alongside that they can use (99.999% > of the time). > > If you want to micro-map a footway as well, and put foot=no on the > cycleway, feel free. > > But unless you've micro-mapped the footway, you should *not* be adding > foot=no explicitly or implicitly, unless there really is no route. And > the simplest way to show that it has been micromapped is to put an > explicit foot=no on the cycleway when you've done it.
Micro-mapping is only appropriate where there IS a separately marked pedestrian area on the ground. SOME cycleways do have 'no pedestrian' markings, just as some footpaths have 'no cycles' but the main discussion should be providing a macro level view of the 'data'. On the whole, a simple single way may well define the route for cars, bikes, and people. What needs to be clear is where these routes separate into sections that are specific to each target. Micro-mapping the physical areas on the ground is the ultimate, but showing separate pedestrian and cycle crossing points, and linking them to foot and bike only routes is something of a mess currently? > I can see why this sort of nonsense would put a commercial router off > - it may not affect their current service, but it doesn't exactly > inspire confidence, does it? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
