dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Jul 19 12:16:47 BST 2010
2010/7/16 Richard Welty <rwelty at averillpark.net>:
> On 7/15/10 5:45 PM, John Smith wrote:
>> On 16 July 2010 07:42, Richard Mann
>> <richard.mann.westoxford at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Can't find it on the wiki - do you have a ref?
I did that, because of 2 reasons:
1) there is a number of users who think that surface gets more and
more complicate to evaluate due to the level of detail. They say (and
it is IMHO true for some usecases) that surface=paved/unpaved is
2) suggestions on the mailing list to tag surface and/or paved.
> geez, that really should go away. surface= already serves
> the purpose, and is a lot more flexible.
The flexibility of surface is also a problem: the more different
values are inserted, the more complicated it gets. I do agree that
tagging detailed surface information is valuable, but I'd really like
to see an alternative way to tag simple surface values as well.
Tagging surface=paved/unpaved doesn't solve this, because the next
user will change this to detailed surface values (I do this myself, as
paved/unpaved is not sufficient in many cases).
More information about the Tagging