[Tagging] RFC - Feature Proposal - area of steps for pedestrians. Compatibility and barriers.
61sundowner at gmail.com
Fri Mar 29 22:48:42 UTC 2019
On 29/03/19 20:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Fr., 29. März 2019 um 08:28 Uhr schrieb Warin
> <61sundowner at gmail.com <mailto: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?
Compatibility. If/when that goes ahead.
> 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.
I think barriers on stairs could be simply added as separate ways. This
would allow for barriers to be across the stairs at any angle, for any
length, for any pattern. It requires no additional tags.
Nor am I defining ramps, etc. Just steps is hard enough.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging