[OSM-talk] Deprecation/move of incorrect tags

Corey Burger corey.burger at gmail.com
Fri Jul 13 03:24:40 BST 2007


On 7/12/07, Alex L. Mauer <hawke at hawkesnest.net> wrote:
> Ulf Lamping wrote:
> > Alex L. Mauer schrieb:
> >> I'd like to propose the deprecation of the following "highway" values:
> >>
> >> steps (move to properties: steps=yes)
> >> mini_roundabout (move to junction=mini_roundabout)
> >>
> > Two ACKs. BTW: Thanks for helping in cleaning up stuff, I do appreciate
> > it ;-)
>
> right back at you!
>
> >> The following do not belong in highway in my opinion, but I have no
> >> better place for them at the moment; any suggestions?:
> >>
> > Finding a better place might be the harder part :-(
>
> agreed.  it is my opinion that they should be dropped entirely and
> changed to be generic paths with restrictions as necessary ( see
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Trail -- RFC
> coming up right after this).  in particular highway=cycleway doesn't
> belong even in a legal sense, since bicycles don't have a right of way
> on those (by my understanding) -- while bridleway= and footway= do exist
> as legal rights of way

Sounds good.

>
> >>services
> >>
> > Probably should stay in highway, think of it as service stations at
> > motorways, may even have a dedicated exit nr.
> > We also have motorway_junction and probably another one shortly, so this
> > one seems fine to me.
>
> In particular I object because the services are not part of the road
> itself, and because of the potential confusion with highway=service
> (note the distinction -- I am suggesting removing the plural not the
> singular)
>
> >> incline
> >>
> > move to properties: incline=10%, probably also add another one
> > decline=10%. incline only is not enough, as the direction of the
> > segments of oneway's might need to be different than the "direction" of
> > the incline
>
> Excellent idea.  I'll write a proposal for it.
>
> >> incline_steep
> >>
> > remove completely, use incline with a percent value only
> >> viaduct
> >>
> > special case of a bridge, which is already a property - move to
> > properties? This would also remove railway=viaduct as well
>
> could add a value to bridge: bridge=viaduct...

What exactly are we trying to capture here? Is it useful to know which
is merely a bridge and what is a viaduct?

>
> >> bus_stop
> >>
> > while we need this tag, I'm still not sure how I actually have to *use*
> > it. Simply a node in the highway or some small highway=service
> > explicitly to/from it?
>
> I agree we need it, but I don't think it should be part of highway.
> Maybe we need a series of bus tags (bus:stop, bus: station, bus:route?)
> Around here, the bus stops are just a spot (usually a signpole, maybe a
> small shelter) where the bus will pull to the side of the road --
> shouldn't need a highway=service.

This makes sense to me.

>
> > What I find strange here is to have bus_stop (only a halt) under highway
> > and bus_station (a bigger station) under amenity.
>
> Yeah, see above for additional comments on that.  I'm not going to
> propose fixes for that for now though, I just think highway=bus_stop is
> totally wrong.

Corey




More information about the talk mailing list