[Tagging] proposed routes, state-tag

Paul Johnson baloo at ursamundi.org
Sat Dec 3 23:06:54 GMT 2011


On Fri, 2011-12-02 at 12:29 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> Maybe I was exaggerating. Generally I don't see a big difference
> between routes and ways, and tags that change the overall meaning of
> other tags significantly should be avoided in favour of more
> fail-proof solutions. If a tag states that there is a route on the
> ground (route=bicycle) then there shouldn't be another tag
> state=proposed (or say abandoned=yes) that if set says: no there isn't
> actually, there might be a route in a while (maybe) or there has been
> a route in the past which isn't there any more.
> 
> On the other hand I can follow your arguments: maybe this is not the
> best way to denote this, but it is already in widespread use, current
> applications are already aware of it, and routes are special interest
> tags so most applications won't evaluate them anyway.

I wouldn't say that routes are special interest so much as routes just
don't follow a single way, and a single way often has multiple routes.
I realize this doesn't tend to be the case so much in Europe, where ways
are generally limited to having one route on it, but North America does
take this to the far opposite extreme (For example, I can think of one
5-mile loop of road that is collectively a member of three national
routes, two interstate routes, a state route and a city route in Tulsa,
no leg of which is a member of fewer than 2 routes).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20111203/9d22d447/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Tagging mailing list