[OSM-talk] mark a way as secondary

[Andy Robinson]

And that’s even better Thomas. My first draft of the map features used
"type" and had the benefits with respect to the key not holding the
information as you say. But I was trying to be concise, especially with that
first draft as I was naturally worried about loosing the plot for everyone
with a set of keys and values that was too long and cumbersome.

Now that it's in regular use (alongside the simple "class" catches all
tagging) it’s a good time to consider the merits of your comment regarding
the use of the key. When I was drafting there were no rules about what a key
was and what format it should take.

In the global scheme of things, the fact that there is a large amout of data
now using the highway tag should not be any big deal. Yes it might mean that
keys and values ideally need to be changed, but that’s not a real reason to
stop getting data into the database.

Cheers,

Andy

Andy Robinson
Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-
>bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Walraet
>Sent: 10 June 2006 12:46
>To: Talk Openstreetmap
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] mark a way as secondary
>
>Joerg Ostertag a écrit :
>> On Saturday 10 June 2006 12:22, James Mastros wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 11:47:28AM +0200, Immanuel Scholz wrote:
>>>
>>>>I dislike the wording "highway" as a replacement for "class", [..]
>>>
>>>As such, I'd prefer to see "class" rather then "highway" as well [..]
>>
>> I completely agree with you. I always had problems with the naming
>highway=...
>> [..]
>
>I also prefer "class" or "type" keys.
>
>
>One of the problem I see in the highway/railway/etc scheme is that the
>key is no more just a key, but hold information in itself. It's
>certainly a good thing for concision (is it a real english word?), but
>not for consistency and ease of processing or ui things.
>
>I strongly prefer something like
>type=road class=primary
>type=rail class=secondary
>
>than
>highway=primary
>railway=secondary
>
>
>I see three big advantage for the Map_Features system :
>- It is documented on the wiki
>- Andy has done work to make it as complete as possible
>- osmarender "default" rules file use it.
>
>But I don't like it.
>
>
>Another big problem to keep in mind for people searching for the best
>tagging system is the "roundabout problem". A junctions can be road,
>rail, etc. and it can be primary or not... I like the idea of clearly
>tagging junctions, because it can help an automatic simplification of
>maps at higher level.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk