[OSM-talk] Deprecation/move of incorrect tags

Ulf Lamping ulf.lamping at web.de
Fri Jul 13 03:35:58 BST 2007


Alex L. Mauer schrieb:
> 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
>   
Well, here in germany there's a dedicated cycleway - legally. It has a 
round blue circle sign with only a bicycle on it. It's only for bicycles 
and nothing else. Of course there are also mixed ways together with 
pedestrians and even parted ones: left bycicles and right pedestrians ...
>> 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, 
but the exit to the services *is* a part of the road and nothing else.
> and because of the potential confusion with highway=service
> (note the distinction -- I am suggesting removing the plural not the
> singular)
>   
Yes, I see the confusion, maybe this should be changed to 
highway=motorway_services, as I can't remember any services *not* 
related to a motorway. Any such thing on a primary or smaller road would 
be tagged by their fuel, restaurant and alike things only IMO.

Maybe we first need a good more detailed description how such things on 
motorways should be tagged, before we can make a good descision here - 
I'm still unsure.
>>> 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.
>   
Good
>>> 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...
>   
That's a good idea, as a viaduct is obviously a special form of a 
bridge, so this makes perfect sense to me!

The same goes to railway=viaduct -> bridge=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.
>
>   
>> 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.
>   
Well, not totally wrong, but the combination of the bus tags could be 
better :-)

Regards, ULFL




More information about the talk mailing list