[Tagging] type=route tagged on a way?

osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au
Thu May 17 16:36:29 UTC 2018

Well, if this particular way of tagging things is generally supported by data consumers, then I would consider it a documentation error instead of a tagging error.


But if it’s not used by data consumers in this form (while the same information on a relation is), and clearly the people creating these tags intended them to be usable, then I would consider a tagging error.


So, yeah, I would say that “tagging error” IS in a part defined by data consumers.


The “correct” way of tagging something is in the end defined by a somewhat nebulous consensus between the way people tag and the way data consumers interpret that data.


From: Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com> 
Sent: Friday, 18 May 2018 01:51
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
Subject: Re: [Tagging] type=route tagged on a way?


17. May 2018 15:11 by osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au <mailto:osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au> :

So my question is, is this type of tagging actually supported by data consumers, or are these 9000 tagging errors?


"tagging error" is not defined by whatever something is used by data consumers or not


In Poland I see some route=emergency_access that seems to be OK (though there may be 

a better way to tag this and type=route in this case is pointless).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180518/f032d560/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list