[Tagging] Reviving the path discussion - the increasing importance of trails in OSM

[Peter Elderson]

Sounds like rendering for the mapper...don't know if that's as bad as the
other way around....

Op vr 22 mei 2020 om 16:07 schreef Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>:

>
>
> On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 22:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> May 22, 2020, 13:55 by andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 21:44, Daniel Westergren <westis at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I guess there's no way to force the user to add a surface tag when
>> adding a highway=path. We could also use analyzing tools to look for recent
>> edits with only highway=path and comment to users about the use of surface
>> etc.
>>
>>
>> I think that's a step too far, while it's nice for people to add extra
>> attributes and we should try to make it easier for mappers to discover what
>> tags there are and use them, there is no obligation to, the same way a
>> building=yes on a node is much appreciated even if it's not traced out in a
>> way and has the building type mapped, a lone highway=path is still useful
>> alone.
>>
>> Improving editors would be a better step, such extreme nagging is more
>> likely to discourage people.
>>
>
> Agreed, though I think the biggest driver for the casual mapper would be
> to close the feedback loop so they can actually see this change. ie. making
> the default OSM style render width and surface.
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200522/57bf7faa/attachment.htm>