[Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path
gdt at ir.bbn.com
Tue Jun 14 12:38:33 UTC 2016
Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> writes:
> 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
It's not really binary. I can't give a great definition; it's about a
sense of which trails are more prominent, in the opinion of the
maintainers and the people that are very familiar with the area.
Operationally I would say: if you took the person who was the most
expert in the trail network, and assumed they were trained in classical
cartography, and had them draw a map, which trails would they demphasize
or even omit - those are not main.
>> 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
In my town, being an official path (appearing on the town-published map
and therefore it being permissible to travel on it) does not always
imply that it is maintained, because there is not always enough
volunteer labor to clear the down trees. Other ones can appear
maintained because people use them and clear things themselves (even
though that is also against the rules). Built is often unclear,
compared to widened from use.
But I can see the point that official is not that important to record,
because when there are rules about not using non-official trails that
can just be in access=yes/no.
>> to record the reason for the access=no.
> I suggest source:access for these, like we do with maxspeed.
Agreed; that's better.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 180 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Tagging