<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/8/10 Nop <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ekkehart@gmx.de">ekkehart@gmx.de</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
<br>
Hi!<br>
<br>
Liz schrieb:<br>
<div class="im">> would a suggestion made on the talk-au list in which highway=footway and<br>
> highway=cycleway be deprecated and be replaced by<br>
<br>
</div>I think we should step back one step.<br>
<br>
The discussion here seems about to fall victim to the same mechanisms<br>
that produced the present chaos. Different people/groups think they have<br>
solved the problem for their (local) use cases and are arguing in favor<br>
of their solution, which usually involves interpreting existing tags in<br>
a specific way. I am glad that this topic has come up - and of course I<br>
have my own ready-made suggestion for a solution - but I suggest we look<br>
at the problems and goals again before we go for a specific solution<br>
attempt.<br>
<br>
<br>
I think the main questions are:<br>
<br>
- Can we agree on a common interpretation of what foot/cycleway are<br>
supposed to mean?<br>
- Do we want a general meaning for every country, delegating local<br>
specifics to other tags, or a local meaning dependent on a countries<br>
specific conditions?<br>
<br>
- Can we use the existing access-Tags to describe the exact rules of<br>
traffic e.g. in Germany (which seems to have the highest requirements so<br>
far) and agree on the meaning there, too, or do we need to invent a<br>
whole new scheme for local specifics?<br>
<br>
- Do we tag generic trails as highway=path or does this tag have a more<br>
complex meaning?<br>
<br>
Can we try to discuss the problem at this level before proposing<br>
detailed tagging schemes?<br>
<br>
<br>
There is also the questions which is important but should not be mixed in:<br>
<br>
- how can we get a coherent tagging model for OSM?<br>
<br></blockquote></div>+1 For the general email.<br>Agreeing on the definition first is always a good first step to construct something.<br><br>Emilie Laffray<br>