[OSM-talk] The Return of the Highway tags and other junk

[Ben Robbins]

Well I'm forced to revive this topic, as It seems to have stopped.  Nothing 
on the original post has really been answered, but a handful of elements 
discussed.   Bar the correction that in very few circumstances tertiary may 
still have its use within the UK, none of the original post needs to be 
changed.  I still think the same.  Pushing a topic into the past doesn’t 
mean anything has been resolved.  Now there’s a few outcomes that I would 
expect to be clear as a result of discussion, of which none seem to have 
been argued yet. (although opions may be clear)
1) My ideas are faulty, and the current is logical,
2) there both faulty,
3) mines logical; the current is faulty
4) there both logical, so stay with the current.
5) knowone gives a dam, until they bump into the same problem, therefore its 
just my problem.

Well, here’s an example of why the current needs fixing.  I know of an 
example where an old train line crosses a viaduct, the railway has been 
dismantled, and a tracktype=grade4 goes across it.  There is then a few 
gates, and one cattle grid(ish).  The whole section is a permissive walkway. 
Now for this argument I shall also say its narrow gage, although in reality 
it isn’t, but it’s possible. Now the current way (referencing the features 
page) would be:

highway/railway=viaduct
highway=gate,
highway=cattle_grid
highway=footway
highway=track
railway=abandoned
railway=narrow_gauge,
foot=permissive

Now there are some obvious impossibilities there, but please say if you 
disagree.

Now I'm proposing (in reference to tracktypes, the border key and features 
key) that it could be done something like this.., and if not, I’m proposing 
a discussion, to 1) say why its poor, and 2) suggest better..

highway=footway
foot=permisive
tracktype=grade4
railway=narrow_gaugue
abandoned=yes (<I’m unshore of this as its not specific to what it 
references)
border*=cattlegride
border*=gate
feature=viaduct

(*=the two tags would be on separate adjacent ways)

Now, 1 of them is possible, and 1 of them is not. (I’ve tried them both) If 
the possible one is poor then it should be discussed.  But saying that the 
original is fine really doesn’t work.  (note:  features is proposal for 
things that fall along the way, border is for things that fall adjacent to 
the way, and commonly make borders, such as a hedge).

Now specifically talking about tracktypes.

It doesn't matter how little people care about the tag, the following are 
facts. (if not, explain why.)

1)  The current 'track' tag is under highway

2)  It therefore is either stating a legal access right to the track, or it 
doesn’t!

If it doesn’t, then there needs to be an additional tag on top.  This means 
it can’t be used with a highway tag, because the additional tag requires the 
highway value.

If it does, then please explain to me what the legal access rights stated by 
the track tag are.

3) The track tag does not in any way indicate the difference between the 5 
described track types.  (who cares some people may say…)

4) There is at least 1 OSM member who wishes to tag the different track 
properties of what he rides/walks/drive on, as well as stating the rights of 
way.   There is nothing in the track type proposal that will prevent others 
using other tags.  It is just a new tag.  Therefore: 5) If you don’t 
need/use it, It won’t effect you

6) Mud in England is still Mud in New Zealand.  Gravel in England is still 
gravel in Japan.  This is therefore not Ukistic.

7) A road that is wide enough for 2 cars to pass without altering there 
speed in England, is the same as it is in India.  (although car widths may 
vary slightly).  Roads which cannot be past on in England is the same in 
Kazakhstan.

8)  A wide unclassified road, will on average allow faster progress than a 
thin unclassified road.  The route planner should therefore be able to tell 
them apart.  I think (opion) that the majority of people would agree that 
getting out a car and measuring a road and tagging the width is not a 
realistic idea, but noting weather cars can pass each other is plausible.  
I'm requesting suggestions on how this should be tackled.  If not I shall 
create my own, and then go threw this process again with that.

Can people please reply with either valid and necessary critisms with better 
suggestions, or of course agreements are a posibility…(as if!).  I may just 
be being that annoying itch that won’t go away, but this is all written with 
the aim of progression.

Thanks

Ben

_________________________________________________________________
It's Hotmail's 10th Birthday! Come and play Pass the Parcel  
http://www.msnpasstheparcel.com