[Tagging] RFC - Feature Proposal - area of steps for pedestrians.
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Mar 29 09:12:35 UTC 2019
Am Fr., 29. März 2019 um 08:28 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com>:
> On 29/03/19 17:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 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.
As far as I see you proposed the same tagging for your proposal,
"type=area" for the relation, why so generic if the scope is reduced to
area steps? You are also including the same proposed roles and concepts for
the stairmodelling, "upper" and "lower". The main difference to the
original area relation proposal is that you didn't add the other
applications, like defining implicit or adding explicit barrier features
and punctual exceptions to these barriers.
> 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 would be in the tradition of pedestrian routing around the squares, now
also around steps ;-)
Seriously, I would not tag any of these with highway=steps, I would rather
draw another way for the routing, in the middle of the laterals (actually
the laterals may often not be needed at all, if they are just straight
lines between the upper and lower start and endpoints. They might be needed
for topology reasons if you want to connect other things explicitly, e.g.
retaining walls, buildings, etc.).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging