wendorff at uni-paderborn.de
Fri Aug 27 08:17:18 BST 2010
On 27.08.2010 08:06, lkytomaa at cc.hut.fi wrote:
>> contra arguments:
>> - renderers possibly render more than one name for one street. To
>> solve that
> It's not (only) a rendering issue. The name of the road is
> "Foo street", but the sidewalk doesn't have a name of its
> own; it shouldn't be named.
As the sidewalk is defined as part of the street, not another way, it is
named in my interpretation.
Your argument counts, if you say the same for the street itself.
To be precise we would have to set no name to the street, too and add
some kind of relation carrying the name.
As that's difficult to do I would prefer to be a little bit unprecise in
the other direction, naming sidewalk and street the same.
I'm not generally against that argument - I give it equally weight to my
opinion at current. I would prefer to get mor opinions ;)
> If people feel it's necessary to "tie" it to a specific nearby
> way, go for some other tag; sidewalk_of=Foo street ?
This alternative has two drawbacks leading me to prefer my variant:
- sidewalk_of is a new tag with has to be known by mappers.
- I don't see, where it's more powerful than just naming the footway +
setting it as sidewalk
> Some have
> proposed relations for making up whole streets, but it hasn't
> gained much use with house numbering - most use the tag
> addr:street - so I doubt it would happen with sidewalks, either.
That's the reason for my idea not to use a relation, yes.
More information about the Tagging