[talk-au] New key proposal - paved=yes/no
ben.kelley at gmail.com
Sun Sep 21 02:25:36 UTC 2014
This sounds like a very good suggestion. Often you just want to know if the
road is paved.
It seems like that was the original intent of surface=, but that is not how
it gets used now.
How surface= implies paved= sounds good too.
On 21 Sep 2014 11:03, "David Bannon" <dbannon at internode.on.net> wrote:
> Interesting proposal on the OSM Tagging list. Oz would have a
> unpaved/paved ratio as higher that most countries, we should have an
> opinion on this.
> So far, reaction has been mixed, some (including myself) welcoming it
> and some seeing it as a duplicate of surface=
> Comments folks ?
> On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 23:42 +0200, Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > I've posted the below message on the forum, and have been directed
> > from there to this mailing list, thus re-posting it.
> > Idea
> > I would like to suggest making the paved key for highways (and
> > probably other types of elements) official. Taginfo for paved:
> > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/paved#values
> > The above shows that the key is already being used, but the Wiki
> > doesn't describe this key, instead redirecting Key:paved to the
> > article about Key:surface.
> > Rationale
> > Currently, the surface key is being used as a way of saying that a
> > given highway is paved or unpaved, but often the value for the surface
> > key is not a generic paved or unpaved, but a specific surface type is
> > given.This is of course very useful for describing the particular
> > surface type a given highway has. However, in some cases, a simple
> > information on just whether a highway is paved or not, would be very
> > useful. One such case would be navigation software – if a user chooses
> > to avoid unpaved roads, the software can check the value of the
> > surface key, but in practice most (all?) of the navigation software
> > only checks for a subset of all the possible values the surface key
> > can have. This leads to incorrect (in terms of what the user expects)
> > navigation when, for example, the surface is set to some value that
> > describes an unpaved road, not recognized by the navigation software –
> > if the software assumes that all highways are paved, unless explicitly
> > stated otherwise (by recognized values of known keys), then, in
> > consequence, it assumes that the road in question is paved.
> > If the paved key was widely used, then the navigation software would
> > have a simple and clear way of checking whether a given road is paved
> > or not. The default value of the paved key for highways could be yes,
> > so that it would be consistent with the assumption that highways in
> > general are paved.
> > I don't mean that we should stop using the paved and unpaved values
> > for the surface key – I'm sure those generic values are useful in some
> > cases. However, using the paved key would be also very useful. Also,
> > the surface=paved could also implicate paved=yes and similarly
> > surface=unpaved could implicate paved=no, so that duplication of the
> > information could be avoided when the generic paved and unpaved values
> > are set for the surface key.
> > I believe that adding an article for the paved key to the Wiki would
> > encourage people to use this tag, and navigation software makers to
> > implement support for it in their applications.
> > What do you think about that?
> > Regards,
> > Tomek
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-au