[OSM-talk] Deprecation/move of incorrect tags

[Andy Robinson]

Alex Mauer wrote:
>Sent: 16 July 2007 11:34 PM
>To: talk at openstreetmap.org
>Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Deprecation/move of incorrect tags
>
>Stephen Gower wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 08:11:33PM -0500, Alex Mauer wrote:
>>> This is a lot to respond to, but:
>>
>>> I understand highway to be synonymous with right of way, yes. If
>>> something is a "highway" that says nothing about what standard it is
>>> built and maintained to: how and to what extent that highway is built
>>> and maintained is a function of what *kind* of highway it is. So yes,
>>> primary and secondary would each be maintained to a certain standard.
>>
>>   OK. I'm arguing for a distinction between (what I currently tag as)
>>   "highway=cycleway; foot=yes" and "highway=footway; cycle=yes".  I'm
>>   also arguing for, in general, keeping the status quo, unless
>>   there's a good reason for changing.  For me, most good reasons for
>>   change could be grouped into "it doesn't work", "it breaks
>>   something at the moment" or "it prevents some important new feature
>>   being implemented".  As far as I can tell, there is no good reason
>>   for going through the pain of changing, and there is no current
>>   proposal that maintains the distinction of what *kind* of path this
>>   is.
>
>The reason I have is that there is currently no way to have a path that
>*isn't* primarily a footway, cycleway, or cycleway.  A ski trail would
>be a good example of this, which I actually have in my area; The path(s)
>in question is not allowed to be used other than for skiing, (in winter)
>presumably to prevent or reduce erosion.
>

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/WikiProject_Piste_Maps for details
of how people have previously made piste maps

Cheers

Andy

>>> When I said that "highway" implies automotive traffic, I meant that in
>>> the context of OSM: the tag is very much oriented towards motor vehicle
>>> traffic. [...]
>>
>>   It is?  Not the way I look at it!
>
>Count the number of highway values that are for motor vehicle traffic.
>I count 12.
>
>Now count the number for non-motor-vehicle traffiic.  I count 3, maybe 4
>if you count "pedestrian".
>
>Looks pretty motor-vehicle oriented to me.
>
>>  Cyclepaths in the UK *and
>>   other parts of Europe* (at least) are different from
>>   footpaths-with-permission-to-cycle and there needs to be a way of
>>   showing what kind of path it is.
>
>Yes, but it also requires that you decide what kind of path it is, and
>that the path *be* one of those three kinds of paths.  There is
>currently no way to tag a path that is equally a foot path and a cycle
>path, and all the more so no way to tag it, if it doesn't meet the
>standards of the UK term "bridleway", "footway", or "cycle track"
>
>Again, I'd like to point out that OSM is *international* and trying to
>force routes of the entire world into the UK's legal system is simply a
>waste of effort.
>
>>   Oh, I hadn't looked at the detail of this before and now I do, I
>>   see "route" is not the place for this!  "route" is, as Map_Features
>>   currently says, non-physical.  It represents a journey - it's a
>>   collection of highways (and parts of highways) that make up the
>>   course travelled.  A numbered bus or cycle route does not sit well
>>   with a single anonymous passageway.  If I saw route=path, I's
>>   assume it was a long(ish) distance walk, like The Thames Path or
>>   The E9 European Coastal Path - probably what in the US is called a
>>   trail.
>
>To me, "route" means any sort of linear thing that can be travelled,
>covering roads, paths, etc.  (The dictionary backs this up much more
>than it backs up an entire network of [generic term other than route
>which covers roads, paths, etc.] being a "route".  Wordnet does include
>"itinerary" as a synonym, but that's the closest it gets that I could
>find.)
>
>I have a proposal "network" to cover the named network of [generic term
>other than route which covers roads, paths, etc.] that you're using
>route to mean.
>
>Also, if route is restricted to non-physical things, "ski" needs to be
>removed from that list -- and there's currently no suitable replacement.
>
>-Alex Mauer "hawke"