[talk-au] Australian Cycleways
waldo000000 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 14 03:00:10 GMT 2009
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:40 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/12/14 Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com>:
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> And can I again please direct you to:
> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Consolidation_footway_cycleway_path
> >> If you want to find a resolution to the footway/cycleway/path thing,
> >> please contribute your thoughts there.
> > My feeling is that it would be best to work out what the Australian
> > mapping community wants, then just tell the rest of the wiki. True
> > international normalisation is probably really hard and not worth it.
> This is where meta information stored in state/country boundaries
> could be useful, although that in itself could be a slippery slope of
> storing too much data in meta lookup tables essentially...
The way I see it, at the moment we have tag definitions in the form of
"if A and generally B and usually C, tag with D". But then it becomes
clear that in a different country they use "if X and Y and Z, tag with
The meta lookup table idea is essentially the idea of encoding these
The OTHER option is to do this: "if A, tag with A", "if B, tag with
B", "if C, tag with C", "if X, tag with X", etc.
I prefer the latter option. If this is done, you end up with "true
international normalisation". The trick is, of course, choosing A, B,
C, .... I've made suggestions in the past that include (using the
bicycle=yes/no example), A) legality, B) signage, C) suitability, etc.
The only argument against this, that I have heard of so far, is those
that say "it's too hard to tag A and B and C, I just want to tag D!".
To those people, I would suggest that they use an editor preset.
More information about the Talk-au