<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Jun 10, 2020, 01:05 by miketho16@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div><br></div><div class=""><div>On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:13 PM Tod Fitch <<a href="mailto:tod@fitchfamily.org" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">tod@fitchfamily.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><div>> In my rendering of hiking maps I currently have to look at 13 tags and their values to make a decision if a “path” or “footway” might be what I want to render. This is ridiculous. It is neither easy for the mapper nor the renderer.<br></div><div>><br></div><div>> On the motor vehicle side this would be the equivalent of saying all ways intended for cars should be mapped as highway=road and we can distinguish them by using surface, width, smoothness, maximum speed, etc.<br></div></div><div class="">My understand is that highway=primary/secondary/unclassified/etc. is based on function. It says nothing about the physical configuration, other than it is suitable for a 2-track vehicle. See my comment below about unpaved roads in many parts of the world. <br></div></div></blockquote><div>+1<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>> The two major factions seem to be set in their ways: “It is only a track if it is used for agriculture or forestry” on one side. “It has the same physical characteristics as a track, so it is a track even if it is currently used for hiking, bicycling, riding horses, or by ATVs” on the other side.<br></div><div class="">I am willing to change my mind, but I would like: <br></div><div class="">1) Internal consistency within a definition.<br></div></div></blockquote><div>Especially as what is supposed to be "physical characteristics as a track"?<br></div><div>Currently highway=track may be maintained paved asphalt track or abandoned barely visible<br></div><div>track in grass.<br></div><div><br></div><div>(and "this is unpaved" goes into surface tag, not into highway tag)<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div class="">2) Consistency over time (from week to week, month to month, etc. obviously things can evolve over time, but we don't want to "ping-pong" back and forth) I don't like having the same discussion over and over again. I asked this same question about a trail in a nearby park (Natural Area) a couple of weeks ago on this list and received a largely different answer from the one I am receiving today. Perhaps it is just that different people are reading this list today. <br></div></div></blockquote><div>Probably different people (for example I participated in the previous thread and had no time<br></div><div>so far to do it with this one)<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div class="">3) Precise. It can't be something like "a driveway is highway=service, service=driveway, unless it is too long or too rough, or *seems* like a track, in which case it is highway=track" One mapper I corresponded with via change set comments literally told me he mapped a driveway as a track because it seemed track like to them.<br></div></div></blockquote><div>+1<br></div><div><br></div> </body>
</html>