Hello Sarah,
do not be upset.
Think of it this way: if there is no traffic sign, there is no restriction. If a way is usable, then, depends on the defaults. In that case, the swiss defaults for ways on the swiss side of the border.
Interpretation is not the task of the mapper, but of the tool which uses OSM data to present the result to the map user.
If a way is obviously not fit for a certain kind of traffic, there should be a tag to mark its usability, but this is definitely no restriction tag.
'fit' means physical possibility to use by the traffic means in question.
As seen lots of times in any forum: do not tag for a renderer, do not tag things which aren't there, prefer not to map things which are there over mapping thing which aren't. Better to have a map with holes than having a map with disinformation.
At the time being, there is no means to do what I propose, see?
And what's more: if something is tagged in an old-fashioned way, there will surely be someone to remark this in the future and to correct the mistake. So, quality is a question of time.
Retag all ways. Not tomorrow, but retag them. Someday. No goal - no plan.
Too philosophic? <g> I enjoy such things.
Thomas
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:44:08 +0200 Von: Sarah Hoffmann lonvia@denofr.de An: Openstreetmap Schweiz/Suisse/Svizzera/Svizra talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch Betreff: Re: [talk-ch] Access-Restrictions
Hi,
sorry, for coming in so late in the discussion, just discovered the new features page.
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:05:43PM +0200, Stéphane Brunner wrote:
A way signed with 2.63 is a common foot- and cycleway with a segregation between cyclists and pedestrian (at least a painted line, sometimes a kerb stone). I would recommend to tag those as highway=cycleway,foot=yes to support the fact that on those ways a cyclist is not expected to find any pedestrian on "his" lane. And to separte this case from 2.63.1
I think that il should be one ot those: highway=footway,bicycle=designated highway=cycleway,foot=designated highway=path,foot=designated,bicycle=designated
To me complete all other way without sign should me tagged as
highway=path.
and finally I think that your message should be added to this page : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/EN:CH:Map_Features
I'm a bit upset by the footnote:
"Only ways with one of the blue signs may be tagged as highway=cycleway or highway=footway."
Datendelphin already mentioned the problem with this. This is not at all how highway=cycleway and highway=footway are used at the moment. I'd say that about 99% of the cycleways and footways I have mapped came without a sign. And judging from the map I'm not the only one there. Do you really want to resurvey all footways and cycleways in Switzerland to reflect the change in meaning as indicated in the current features page?
Isn't it possible to describe blue signes sufficiently with additional *=designated, *=yes and *=no and leave the footways and cycleway with the current fuzzy meaning (i.e mainly used by pedestrians/cyclists, no vehicles)?
Basically, I would add the following tags to exclusive-use blue signs:
bike : bicycle=designated,foot=no pedestrian : foot=designated,bicycle=no (bicycle=yes, if "Für Radfahrer frei")
and remove above comment.
Sarah _______________________________________________ talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch