[Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Jun 13 13:07:48 UTC 2016

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 13 giu 2016, alle ore 14:23, Greg Troxel <gdt at ir.bbn.com> ha scritto:
>   It could be that the trail everybody thinks
> is main is not official.   And non-main trails may be official and may
> be not-official.  So I would like to see one tag for official/not and
> one for main/not

can you give a definition of main/not? Is this about the amount of people that take a certain path? Or about the things I can find along? Or?
Is this binary or can there be intermediate levels of "main-ness"?

> Again I would like to see the primary semantics be clear first, and then
> finer points.  If a path is not sanctioned/maintained by the
> authorities, then it's official=no.  

there might be official paths that aren't maintained. I prefer to stick to the established key informal: if it is not built or signposted but developed out of common/spontaneous use, it's informal.
"official" is currently used less than 80 times and would not add anything (IMHO) that informal doesn't catch

> access_no=regulation
> access_no=posted
> to record the reason for the access=no.  

I suggest source:access for these, like we do with maxspeed.

> What I was really objecting to is 'illegal'.  What's law, what's
> landowner rules, what's conservation commission regulation is all messy.
> So I'd like to see a more detached characterization of reality.


> I agree with your goals here.   But, I think it's messier, because the
> road hierarchy of primary/secondary is about importance, not physical.

+1, partly the definition is legal (e.g. motorway). There are also some significant differences between roads and paths (e.g. there is no give way on paths, it is less clear which one is main and which is less)


More information about the Tagging mailing list