[Tagging] Tagging highway=cycleway without explicit knowledge of the law?

Roy Wallace waldo000000 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 14 05:23:00 GMT 2009


On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> suitability)
>> 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
> something better?

Yup, exactly, there's always room for future revision *as long as* the
tags that are used in the meantime have a single consistent meaning
per tag. That's what I'm going for here.

> I'm assuming "signed" includes things that aren't strictly signs, like
> ground paint.

Yep, a sign painted on the ground is still a sign. I think "sign" is
fairly plain english...

> And legal, perhaps, should be "unsigned", because signs also
> represent the law (though I wouldn't oppose if you'd rather just call it
> "legal").

Hmm good point, but I think "legal" is more appropriate than
"unsigned". The tag "*:legal" would simply be available to mappers who
want to make an assertion about the law. They should then indicate
their source using "source:*:legal=*".

> 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.

Exactly what I'm going for - allowing everyone to map the information
they want to map, without "mashing" complicated and variable
information into a single highway=* tag. :) (FWIW, in Australia I'd
never use *:legal or *:suitable either :P)




More information about the Tagging mailing list