[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways

David Paleino dapal at debian.org
Fri Mar 25 12:13:20 GMT 2011

On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> David Paleino wrote:
> > Come on, it's like any other relation. If potlatch can't support *ANY* 
> > kind of relation editing, it's not my fault. It's a bug. I don't use 
> > Potlatch, so I can't tell how advanced his support for relations is.
> Not good enough.
> It is incumbent on you, as someone proposing to tell others how to map, that
> you make sure they _can_ easily map in this way. [..]

Relations have existed long before I started thinking at tihs proposal.

> [..]
> But, nonetheless, actions have consequences. Pulling schemes out of thin air
> and pretending they have no connection with the real-world editors,
> renderers, routers and indexers that people use is one of the reasons why
> the wiki tag process is so utterly discredited.

The scheme hasn't been pulled out of thin air.
It's using well-established things, just put together to make some sense of
them. The only "new thing" is footway=sidewalk. If this new tag is so
revolutionary, please forgive me, and please forget all I've said.

> We _all_ have a responsibility to make OSM editing accessible to newcomers.
> Some of us are already working flat-out to do so. If you want to "extend"
> the data model, therefore adding more for newcomers to learn, _you_ need to
> do your bit to make sure that this won't make OSM more complicated.

Why, oh why, this seems so out-of-context to me?
I think I already gave a solution: if you want to do it simple, use sidewalk=*.
If you want to add more details, follow my proposal.

It's the same thing has streets. Newcomers don't know the difference between
primary, motorway, tertiary, unclassified, [..]. They could start mapping using
"road". But no, we want them to add details. "highway=road" is accepted, but
kind-of-discouraged. Am I wrong?

> That might mean talking to the developers of the biggest editors and
> renderers, that might mean writing some comprehensible beginner-friendly
> docs, or whatever. But you can't just expect those of us who are already
> donating vast amounts of time to necessarily indulge you in your tagging
> whims.

Given all the negative replies I've had, I'm running out of energy now, to
pursue this proposal.
I'm donating vast amounts of time to OSM as well. I develop things, and I can't
let you, or everybody else here, think I'm just a newcomer trying to push his
pet thing.

I explained the proposal as simple as I could, and I've always had the same
non-sensical (to me) replies. Maybe we live in different OSM-worlds, I can't
tell. There must be a communication problem somewhere.


 . ''`.   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...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20110325/2693e6aa/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Tagging mailing list