[Talk-us] Caliparks re-tagging paths?

Rihards richlv at nakts.net
Thu Mar 24 13:00:54 UTC 2016


On 2016.03.24. 14:50, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 03/24/2016 11:26 AM, Marc Gemis wrote:
>> They tagged them as "social_path", according to their blog entry [1]
>
> Thank you for the link. This is what I feared.
>
> highway=social_path is certainly unacceptable - a self-made tag that
> essentially deletes the data for all other consumers.
>
> There would have been numerous other options that would have allowed
> them to single out the tracks they want - for example, tagging the
> official ones with an "operator" tag, or putting them into suitable
> relations or so. Had any of the players involved taken the time to ask
> on this list, I'm sure these options would have been pointed out to them.
>
> As it stands, removing a proper, established highway tag and replacing
> it with something that nobody knows is just a little bit better than
> removing the way altogether.
>
> To make matters worse, it seems that the issue has been pointed out
> almost half a year ago, and has not led to the issue being fixed:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/34599982
>
> It is obvious to me that all occurrences of highway=social_path need to
> be replaced with whatever they were before. I'd normally say let's give
> them some time to come up with a better idea but seeing that the problem
> has been highlighted to them pretty much at the time they made the edits
> 5 months ago, and they haven't come up with a better idea, I'd say the
> time is up now.

supporting this.
if they don't want people to use those trails during normal 
circumstances[1], don't render them on your own map, tag them as 
access=no or whatever.
deleting something real that somebody has spent time mapping is plain evil.

[1] in an emergency i would appreciate any trail on my map, no matter 
how "official"

> Bye
> Frederik
-- 
  Rihards



More information about the Talk-us mailing list