stevagewp at gmail.com
Sat Dec 19 06:03:36 GMT 2009
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, ask yourself: what verifiable information about this path can I
> share with others? That's what you should tag. In this example,
> "surface=pavers, width=0.75" sounds fine to me.
I actually can't think what that information would be useful for. You're
effecitvely saying you want mappers to encode lots of information that the
renderer/router will distill down to a "fuzzy category" later on. That's a
very inefficient way to do things.
> Note that you said "clearly designed for pedestrians only", and in the
> same sentence "so maybe I'd use it [on a bicycle] again". What fuzzy
> category would this fall under? Anyway, look forward to seeing what
> you come up with. Cheers.
Well, dunno about exact tags, but something like "highway=footway
bicycle_suitability=low". That single nugget of information ("low", but not
"zero") is worth much more than descriptive information about the pavers,
the grass, the width, the kerbs, etc etc.
The point I actually wanted to make was that "pavers" could be absolutely
impassable on a bike if they were too raised above the grass and separated
from each other, or they could form a nice riding surface. It would be very
difficult to encode that indirectly. Much better to just say "I was there,
it looked bike unfriendly, but not impossible'>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging