Frederik,
Where you map, maybe a track is public. Not where I map. A track, like a
pencil or a car, is just a phisical thing.
Now I'm not requesting it should be made private by default, or public by
default.
I'm saying that where it 'IS' just a phisical thing, it 'can coexist' with
other highway tags.
The whole problem is differences between the defination of track in different
countries, so talking about it
just in Talk-GB somewhat misses the point.
Now in any ideal system both 'tracks' as you have them, and 'tracks' as we have
them can be mapped/rendered.
In OSM, and on Mapnik (possibly osmarender?), both track and ROW's are under
the same key, and the designation=
doesn't render, although is a hacky way of tackling the problem.
So yes, the exposing of the problem is specific to the UK. The problem is not
specific to the UK.
All we need is a phisical list, and an access list. byway/bridleway/footway
are access.
track/path are physical. Therefore where you map x=track can be by itself, and
you get what you want.
Where I map x=track can go with y=footway and the UK can also be mapped
correctly.
It's so incredibly simple!
Hi,
On 05/21/2011 01:41 PM, Ben Robbins wrote:
> If it is a) (just a track), show just a track. If it is b) (a footway
> (public access)) show a footway. If it is both, we need to be able to
> show both.
A track which does not have access=private or access=no or something is
always accessible and usable for pedestrians, so why would anyone want
to tag it as footway too? A footway, on the other hand, is never a track
because then it would have been tagged as one. I don't understand what
you're going on about, it must be something specific to the UK, and I
second Richard Fairhurst's suggestion that you take this to talk-gb.
Bye
Frederik
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
