[Tagging] Tagging 'averaged' paths in rural Mali

Guttorm Flatabø post at guttormflatabo.com
Mon Feb 11 12:45:46 UTC 2013

On 12:43 11. februar 2013, Andrew Errington <erringtona at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:05:37 Pieren wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
> >
> > <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > +1 to not add width=100 to one single generalized way, that would mean
> > > something very different.
> >
> > -1
> > Saying this road is 100m wide is a joke when you are in the middle of
> > the desert and try to simply follow the previous marks in the sand...

> You can easily see 100m.  The line on the map represents a route, it is not
> the route itself.  By setting the width to 100m you allow for a person to
> travel anywhere within a 100m wide path and still reach the destination.

Yes, but then you can't tag it with highway=*, as it does not imply a route
but a road with some kind of cover and limits. In my opinion this is track,
unclassified or path. What have been suggested to add as width is rather
"accuracy" or something like that, and grade6 is not a good suggestion as
the grades usually say something about the roughness of the road, and here
we don't really know that, nor does it have to be worse than grade5.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130211/008780d6/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list