stevagewp at gmail.com
Tue Dec 8 07:43:14 GMT 2009
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Even if it is more useful, "places where bikes can go" is not
> well-defined. This is the whole point of this thread. If you can come
> up with a more specific definition (e.g. based on law, or physical
> characteristics, or whatever it is that you mean), and a set of
> verifiable tags that are able to express this, then you'd have my
Honestly, I find your position of "surface and width is what you map,
everything else is subjective" a little extreme. Consider the tags
"highway=service", "highway=unclassified" and "highway=track". They cover a
wide range of surfaces and widths. What unites them is that four wheeled
vehicles can do use them. I don't see why the standards for bicycle access
should be higher. If bicycles can and do use certain paths, then let's map
it so. Obviously, recording surface and width *in addition* would be nice,
but it's not essential.
Do you really think you can define every existing tag to this high standard
of objectivity? I don't. So, I'm quite comfortable mapping out bike paths
and pedestrian footpaths, knowing that I will get some of those in the grey
area wrong, and that someone down the line can quibble over it and fix it.
I'd rather get 90% right with a small amount of effort, than 100% right with
a large amount of effort. Or worse, map 50% that are "objective", and leave
the other 50% unmapped because I didn't have all the information required to
I understand that you want beautiful, objective, highly detailed data
everywhere. We all do. My thinking is "low quality data everywhere first,
then medium everywhere, then high everywhere". Yours might be "high quality
data in small areas first, then in bigger areas".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging