[OSM-talk] Deprecation/move of incorrect tags

[80n]

On 7/17/07, Andy Robinson <Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> 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


I was just about to point out exactly the same page :)

This was drawn up a long time ago when we were still using segments and the
class tag.

There is a lot of piste specific information that can/should be collected
and I was considering a complete tagging namespace just for alpine ski/board
riding areas.

Many alpine pistes are mountain roadways during the summer (they may also be
mountain bike trails).  Other pistes may be best describes as areas rather
than routes.  There is also a lot of meta data about lift systems that could
be useful: type, capacity, speed, journey time, etc.

I have tracks for most of the Alpine ski resort of Val Thorens which I need
to upload and tag one of these rainy days.


80n




>>> 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"
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20070717/d3620e21/attachment.html>