[Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?
osm at inbox.org
Mon Dec 14 03:31:40 GMT 2009
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> > I appreciate that you're trying to solve this. I really do. But until
> > have a complete and consistent proposal, which is accepted by the
> > of the community, I'm sticking with making a judgementas best as I can.
> Anthony (and others), what did you think of my proposal from two days ago?:
> highway=path (deprecate footway and cycleway!!)
> *:legal=yes/no (e.g. bicycle:legal=* - for those who want to map the law)
> *:signed=yes/no (e.g. bicycle:signed=* - for those who want to map
> what's on the ground)
> *:suitable=yes/no (e.g. bicycle:signed=* - for those who want to map
> designation=* (official classification, i.e. read from a legal document)
Honestly, I don't know. It sounds like an acceptable way to punt the issue,
so at least we're not arguing about it any more. And maybe once we tag this
way for a while we can run an analysis of the tags and come up with
I'm assuming "signed" includes things that aren't strictly signs, like
ground paint. And legal, perhaps, should be "unsigned", because signs also
represent the law (though I wouldn't oppose if you'd rather just call it
I don't know. I'd like to hear others pick it apart before I decide.
Ideally, I'd like to see the laws and signs of a dozen or two jurisdictions
(on various continents) as well. I think this would work for Florida, but
*:legal=yes/no is not something I'd ever personally tag (I think I'd have to
tag just about everything with a yes); and *:suitable=yes/no is also
something I wouldn't personally ever tag (as I believe it's just too
ambiguous). But if it makes pretty much everyone happy, let's go for it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging