[Tagging] "Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk
dapal at debian.org
Mon Mar 21 19:34:31 GMT 2011
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:24:55 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Josh Doe
> <josh at joshdoe.com> wrote:
> > Serge,
> > I think we're really talking about two proposals here, both of which
> > have merit. The linked proposal has been around for a while, and
> > involves tagging the road to indicate the presence of a sidewalk walk
> > on one or both sides of the road. David refers to this proposal as
> > "deprecated" .
> He can claim that, but it's not depricated; the proposal is 3 years
> old and wasn't ever voted on.
"deprecated" for *ME*. Just because I separately thought at that proposal
before, without looking at the wiki:
> > What David proposed, and what I'm interested in, is mapping the
> > sidewalk as a separate way from the road. This rough proposal is on
> > his page here .
> That's entirely separate.
> I have views about that, but they're not relevant in this discussion.
I believe they could be relevant.
> David should follow the tagging RFC process and make a proposal. I
> don't want to overload one simple tag with something else.
To tag a sidewalk:
That's it. You can add more tags to define crossings and sidewalk properties
(think of wheelchair=yes, or width=, or [..]). I don't see this as bloated as
> > We should certainly link both together though, so users can determine
> > what level of detail is appropriate.
> I disagree. As mentioned in the Sidewalk tag, we already have
> highway=footway, which is what David's proposal would largely change,
Change? My proposal would not change footway's meaning, since, to define a
sidewalk, you need to add "footway=sidewalk".
> rather than an additional tag on roads. In other words, this is a tag
> about roads, not footways.
No. Sidewalks *ARE* *NOT* roads.
Don't take it bad, but I wish you were more cooperative. I have real life
issues right now, and promised to make a "proper proposal" on
Wednesday/Thursday. You can't wait two days? Well, I'm going to vote against
your proposal. Note, however, that this is a bit rude of you; you want to
introduce a badly designed tagging scheme and waste everyone's resources/time
. ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
`. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://deb.li/dapal
`- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Tagging