[Tagging] bicycle=no

Roy Wallace waldo000000 at gmail.com
Tue Dec 8 05:41:51 GMT 2009

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> Legal status often *is* verifiable.  It's not always "mapping what's on the
> ground", but I think we've got a ways to go before we can get away with only
> mapping "what's on the ground".  I agree it's a good ideal, but to follow it
> strictly, the routers would need a separate database to hold a list of
> jurisdiction-specific defaults.

I agree. There doesn't seem to be an easy solution. I do think,
though, that mappers are tempted to use tags relating to the *law*
(e.g. bicycle=yes/no) in the absence of an alternative, for something
they really want to express - that is, "suitability", "common
practice", etc. This is dangerous territory for two reasons:

1) if mappers misuse "yes/no", we'll get in a situation where "yes/no"
could mean any number of things, and hence mean nothing

2) mappers might start using/inventing non-verifiable tags to say what
they want to say about a path, i.e. beyond surface/width

Is there a set of verifiable tags that we can use to express the
nature of paths (beyond surface/width), in the absence of a law book?
I don't think there is, but I'm all ears.

More information about the Tagging mailing list