>I wonder that noone, so far, mentioned that we had similar discussions >on talk-de. >Please, do not discuss only in GB. > >The sitiuation is even a bit more complicated because of law (especially >for bikes) and we have foot/bicycle=official, too. > >I stoped using footway or cycleway at all. > >And do not forget emergencies which could use a track but not a path. > >Thanks >colliar
Well in a nutshell, this is the debate, and how every ML conversation on the matter ends up: http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g226/ben_robbins_/Tracks-1.png?t=1306366810 It starts in the 'blue' section. It then goes in circles for the best part, or it all ends with the renderer. Either of the 3 points where I have put an exclamation mark (but not the bottom right one) would deal with the problem I think you have described. (Ignore the other one, it was for something else) It's rather amazing the complexity of something so simple! --- So really, going along the lines of 'highway=track; designation=xyz' it just about works, but 3 issues remain. 1) It doesn't render correctly/at all. 2) The assumed access rights of highway=track in a route planner are not clear, and/or a problem as shown in diagram. 3) The need for Highway=byway/bridleway/footway...is there one; again shown in diagram. Any definite answers or advice on these points from anyone? cheers, Ben
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
