[Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path
nakaner at gmx.net
Sat Mar 26 12:39:34 UTC 2016
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Am 25.03.2016 um 23:54 schrieb Alan McConchie:
> I’d like to solicit comments on the following proposal, to create a
> new tag called "highway=social_path"
> Wiki page is here:
I vehemently oppose introducing this tag for the reasons given by
Tekim, Gdt and Stevea at the Talk page of your proposal.
It replaces a very old, very often used value by another new one and
its only intend seems to hide features from renderers/data users who
have not added support for your tag.
OSM maps what's on the ground. If there is a path, it is mapped as
path. If there is a sign/information board which prohibites using
unmarked trails, people add access=no to "unofficial" pathes.
> Note: As an experiment, we tagged 17 features in Marin County,
> California, as highway=social_path, but these have subsequently
> been re-tagged as highway=path, access=no. To my knowledge there
> are now no currently-existing examples of highway=social_path in
> the main database. See the discussion on the talk-us list for more
> information. Thread begins here:
people would call this just vandalism.
There is already a discussion about this tag at German forum.
Proposals usually get discussed there when voting starts. Usually
people who hang out there only get notified if the proposal is bad.
Your proposal has been mentioned there today.
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt.
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Tagging