[Tagging] paved=yes/no

[Richard Welty]

On 7/17/10 8:20 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> This isn't a problem I have any idea how to resolve just now. My
> comments above were quite simple: having inconsistent paved=yes/no,
> and surface=xxx is not a problem, because the central authority
> (whatever it is) can simply define one as taking precedence over the
> other in the event of any inconsistency.
>    
ummm, does this type of semantic (with two inconsistent tags, one has 
priority)
appear anywhere else in OSM?

if not, this is a pretty significant change, one that really requires a 
proper proposal
and vote. if we just discuss this and don't do anything, then the 
addition of unpaved
will simply stand as it is right now, without the introduction of these 
semantics.

i might add that if we're looking at the introduction of new semantics 
in order
to make adding unpaved=yes/no ok, it's going to take a great deal to 
convince
me.

richard