User talk:Gustavf

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Gustavf: You made the comment on Proposed features/Path that "I oppose this proposal. as along as it is unclear of this would affect the (widely used) cycleway and footway." In what way is it unclear? It would not affect cycleway or footway in any way unless the "Deprecation" section is approved separately from the main proposal. Even if that section was approved, it would have little effect apart from saying "use of these tags is discouraged, please use path instead". Please consider changing your vote to approve (if you approve highway=path) and simply indicating that you oppose the deprecation of cycleway/footway. Thanks! --Hawke 20:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully my vote is now clear. I find it unclear how two different ways to tag the same information would be used. There might be a case for using highway=path, but deprecating two of the most widely used tags seems a bad idea. Gustavf 21:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I think the use case is described in the one sentence in the "Rationale" section. To further explain: Many countries (incl. the US) don't have the legal concept of "footway", "bridleway", or "cycleway" . It works more like "This path was built for bicycles. Pedestrians and motor vehicles are forbidden". Or "This path was built for pedestrians and cyclists. Skiers may also use it. Motor vehicles are forbidden." or "This is a path. Snowmobilers may use it." For these sorts of shared-use trail, the bridleway/cycleway/footway tags don't apply because they raise one method of transport above the others, or imply that it was built for that single purpose when it wasn't.
Since I expected the deprecation portion to be controversial, I split it into a separate portion of the vote. It is possible to approve or abstain from the main vote (on highway=path) while opposing the deprecation portion; several people have done this, including Vrabcak, Socks, and PhilippeP.
If you still oppose highway=path, I respect that. But I hope I have convinced you otherwise. --Hawke 22:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)