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

Roy Wallace waldo000000 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 14 20:52:39 GMT 2009


On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I disagree - from the wiki: highway=path is "a route open to the
>> public which is not intended for motor vehicles with four or more
>> wheels". I think highway=path is perfect. It's plain English.
>
> Yeah, the /examples subpage is great, too. Serious question: does
> anyone use the tag this way?

Yes. Anyone who tags according to the wiki tags according to the wiki.

> My concern is that renderers generally
> just look at the key (path) and render it as though it was a dirt path
> (dotted brown line). Whereas you're essentially saying they should
> look at all the tags together, and possibly render as a footway, a
> cycleway, etc. And that might be asking too much.

I doubt it. If I understand correctly it's fairly easy to add boolean
relations to a style sheet...

>> Hmm. I see your point, but I don't like your definition. If anything,
>> bicycle=yes/no should keep its current definition, i.e., equivalent to
>> bicycle:legal=yes/no (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access).
>
> That's not how it's used, and you know it. :)

No, I don't "know it". It's impossible to know without asking 200000
mappers. Surely - without doing that - it's more reliable to look at
the wiki than to ask a handful of people on a mailing list?

>> If you want to invent a tag that refers to "the mapper's opinion" (!),
>> then I would recommend using bicycle:Steve's_opinion=yes. :P
>
> Go jump.

No offense! (did you see the smily face?) Seriously, though, I was
making a point. "the mapper's opinion" is not verifiable. It has *no
meaning* unless you know who the mapper was.




More information about the Tagging mailing list