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

Reply via email to