[OSM-talk] opencyclemap and car directions
benlaenen at gmail.com
Wed Dec 2 15:04:44 GMT 2009
Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Imo, this shouldn't be considered in isolation. There's a whole lot of
> situations where the value for a key, such as oneway, maxspeed,
> maxweight, access, is different depending on vehicle or other conditions
> - a common example is maxspeed:hgv (note that nobody is using
> hgv:maxspeed). And it's a bad idea to create a different solution for
> each of these.
> There is a concept that covers all of these and uses oneway:bicycle:
> The bicycle:oneway structure, to my knowledge, hasn't been part of a
> solution that can be used to express all of these cases yet and is
> mostly just there as a solution for this single situation (opposite
> traffic on oneway ways). Imo, that's a too limited perspective.
So that's completely incorrect, bicycle:oneway=no already appeared on
a long time before the extended conditions for access tags proposal was
created (although, indeed, not a definite proposal for such a syntax -- it
still could all change -- but in the mean time it was seeing some usage while
testing it out). But that's far from an "isolated situation for oneway only".
Yeah, so that proposal of mine hasn't seen much change recently. Basically
because I have the impression almost no-one else but me seems interested in
creating formal definitions of access tags, and because proposals like yours
would come up without really looking at what was written on that page. I was
trying to work out a framework to put the existing tags in and work from there
to create a simpler syntax (which maybe could have ended up similar to yours)
-- one for which it would be sure that not the same mistake as with original
access tags is made again. But now with your syntax which is advocated as good
syntax to use and superseding other possibilities just because it is a
proposal, it makes life harder to create the formal framework because we now
have a whole new set of tags that have to be taken into account, and would
rule out a lot of possibilities of perhaps a better syntax.
More information about the talk