[talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
snowgum at gmx.com
Wed Feb 24 23:54:41 GMT 2010
Steve Bennett wrote:
> Just so we're on the same page, I understand you as proposing that we
> use NWN for the AAWT and the BNT, and nothing else. Zero IWT, two NWN,
> lots of RWN and LWN.
Yes, until we develop other national trails.
> I think we can do better.
When the Bicentennial National Trail got named, the meaning of
"national" was clearly understood.
It should have the same meaning in the expression "national walking
network". I see no compelling reason for it not to.
I see two arguments raised for relaxing the meaning of "national":
. The number of NWNs and RWNs is out of balance, with there being many
more RWNs than NWNs.
. NWNs render at a lower zoom level than RWNs.
I reckon these arguments are trivial and inconsequential compared with
confusion created by using the term "national" in some watered-down way.
> I won't say anything about how it's valid to use current renderer
> practice to inform the use of tags in the absence of anything more
> authoritative, until now.
That's as comprehensible as something I'd write on a bad day :)
> This is pretty much OT, but from the few people I've talked to,
> following a GPS while on this kind of trek is not yet standard
> practice. And I really think we can cross the bridge of harm caused by
> OSM data when we get to it... (By which I mean, sure, interesting
> topic for discussion, I just don't want to debate it here.)
When it does get debated, bear in mind that the incentive to use a GPS
unit for bush navigation is going to be greater in an area where track
markers are not permitted.
More information about the Talk-au