[Tagging] RFC - Feature Proposal - area of steps for pedestrians.
61sundowner at gmail.com
Fri Mar 29 08:03:02 UTC 2019
On 29/03/19 18:51, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> Mar 29, 2019, 8:26 AM by 61sundowner at gmail.com:
> On 29/03/19 17:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> sent from a phone
>> On 29. Mar 2019, at 07:05, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com
>> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> This one has been sitting for a long while! Still not certain
>>> about some aspects of it.
>>> See what you make of it.
>>> Discussion here for preference.
>> can you explain how it relates to this proposal?
> That proposal is very broad , it defines implicit areas of any
> kind, steps, ramps, flat bits . I think that is too much in one
> proposal to consider and detail.
> This proposal only does steps. Just steps. It details how larger
> step areas, > say 5 m width, can be mapped.
> Consider in this proposal;
> should the upper and lower ways be tagged with highway=footway so
> as to connect the two laterals?
> should the laterals be tagged with highway=steps
> That may aid editing, rendering and routing...
> It may be useful to mention relation to "area:highway=steps" tagging -
> is it a competing
> incompatible, double tagging of the same feature or something else.
That fails in many ways;
does not detail upper/lower ways that may not be straight lines and
could be inclined
does not detail laterals that may not be straight lines
cannot detail differing number of steps from side to side
cannot have handrails...
Thanks for pointing it out I'll add a link later.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging