Comments on: Paths and Tracks vs. Bridleways, Cycleways and Footways http://www.christeck.de/wp/2010/01/17/paths-and-tracks-vs-bridleways-cycleways-and-footways/ Postings concerning Scrum, Software development, Openstreetmap, Gadgets, and Synthesizers Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:33:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: ce http://www.christeck.de/wp/2010/01/17/paths-and-tracks-vs-bridleways-cycleways-and-footways/comment-page-1/#comment-2244 ce Sun, 07 Feb 2010 21:16:43 +0000 http://www.christeck.de/wp/?p=1899#comment-2244 On the one hand, the cycleway value is used for many different purposes (e.g. any minor way that can be used by bike). On the other hand, we have some jurisdictional dependencies, so german mappers want to cearly express the difference between the following signs: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Zeichen_237.svg http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Zeichen_239.svg http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Zeichen_240.svg http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Zeichen_241.svg Thus I think it is not the optimal solution to assume that highway=cycleway implies foot=yes. But that's just my personal two cents. On the one hand, the cycleway value is used for many different purposes (e.g. any minor way that can be used by bike). On the other hand, we have some jurisdictional dependencies, so german mappers want to cearly express the difference between the following signs:
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Zeichen_237.svg
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Zeichen_239.svg
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Zeichen_240.svg
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Zeichen_241.svg

Thus I think it is not the optimal solution to assume that highway=cycleway implies foot=yes. But that’s just my personal two cents.

]]> By: Richard Fairhurst http://www.christeck.de/wp/2010/01/17/paths-and-tracks-vs-bridleways-cycleways-and-footways/comment-page-1/#comment-2226 Richard Fairhurst Mon, 18 Jan 2010 15:34:05 +0000 http://www.christeck.de/wp/?p=1899#comment-2226 As someone who believes the "path" tag, and "=designated", to be a nasty, unnecessary piece of tag bloat in most circumstances, I'm sorry to see this. We already have a tag for "dedicated, combined foot- and cycleway" - that's highway=cycleway; a cycle-only route should be "highway=cycleway, foot=no". But then I don't use JOSM so I don't really have any right to complain! "If our editors were better and capable of hiding all the tagging stuff completely" Potlatch 2 is. :) As someone who believes the “path” tag, and “=designated”, to be a nasty, unnecessary piece of tag bloat in most circumstances, I’m sorry to see this. We already have a tag for “dedicated, combined foot- and cycleway” – that’s highway=cycleway; a cycle-only route should be “highway=cycleway, foot=no”. But then I don’t use JOSM so I don’t really have any right to complain!

“If our editors were better and capable of hiding all the tagging stuff completely”

Potlatch 2 is. :)

]]>