<div dir="ltr">I agree with Andrew regarding the disincentive of having inconsistent guidance on highway tagging, and associated discussions that don't necessarily reach conclusions. I think we need to continue to prioritize this known issue, to reduce that disincentive and improve data quality/consistency.<div><br></div><div><div>I'm curious to see any findings of the subsequent "post mortem" work to develop more clear and consistent guidance for highway tagging. Ultimately, I think the available guidance needs to be consolidated, clarified, and made more consistent. That's a substantial task, but as Andrew said, it surely must be possible to come to a conclusion for a generic set of definitions.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Cheers,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">~~Steve</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Suzan Reed <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:suzan@suzanreed.com" target="_blank">suzan@suzanreed.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Is there a way to have only those tags used in a specific activation loaded into iD and JOSM so none of the others show? Or something similar?<br>
<span class=""><font color="#888888"><br>
Suzan<br>
</font></span><div class=""><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Andrew Patterson <<a href="mailto:andrewvhp@gmail.com">andrewvhp@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Whilst I fully accept the concept of open debate in an attempt to reach a consensus, I do find the current discussion less than helpful, because of the range of definitions being thrown out, and the added geographic dimension to the definitions. This is not helped by the variety in advise in the instructions for various tasks - ranging from "if in doubt mark it as a path, and this can be upgraded by someone on the ground" to much more specific instructions in the Nepalese instructions, for example. But the type of terrain in which one might contemplate a 4 wheel drive in Africa is very different to that regularly used in Nepal.<br>
><br>
> Surely if must be possible to come to a conclusion for a generic set of definitions. I rather support John Whelan's breakdown, where he suggests that "if its to a small group of huts its probably a track, if<br>
> its to narrow for a 4X4 and winds its a path, and if I can see two wheel tracks then its a track unless its between two settlements of reasonable<br>
> size then its unclassified".<br>
><br>
> There was a huge correspondence in a similar vein during the early days of the Nepal disaster, which I found to be a real disincentive to contributing during the first couple of weeks, and I have only latterly started working on task. There has also been an impressive and important Post Mortem exercise to improve things, and I would suggest that the size of the preset list is one area in which some serious pruning could be done with consequent increase in transparency to a new comer<br>
><br>
><br>
> Andrew<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Andrew Patterson<br>
><br>
> The information contained in this e-mail and any<br>
> files transmitted with it is confidential and intended for the addressee only.<br>
</div></div><div class=""><div class="h5">> _______________________________________________<br>
> HOT mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:HOT@openstreetmap.org">HOT@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
HOT mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:HOT@openstreetmap.org">HOT@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>