[OSM-talk] Deprecation/move of incorrect tags

Alex L. Mauer hawke at hawkesnest.net
Tue Jul 17 10:39:08 BST 2007

Andy Robinson wrote:

> Probably better to wait till the STAGS stuff is out as the above is only
> going to confuse people even more. However if you were to list out those
> same features with two tags (one for the physical and one for the
> administrative/descriptive) then that might be a good start as I'll probably
> no be suggesting piste type tags for the first round of discussion but would
> be happy to include any that get forwarded.

I'm not sure how you mean.  Physically they'd all be nearly the same,
with the exception of the alpine piste, at least in its area form.  So I
guess that would be physical:route=path ... perhaps some might be paved,
others unpaved, but I'm not sure how to represent that
(physical:surface=paved, physical:surface=bark_chips)?

Administratively they're just predefined sets of access restrictions in
some cases, and use recommendations in others.  Not sure how to do that,
but ...
admin:access:horse=yes;admin:access:foot=yes;admin:use:bicycle=yes (for
a path intended for bicycles, but upon which horse and foot are also
allowed)?  and perhaps ... admin:access:bicycle=highway for a UK cycle

One thing I've been missing is an explanation of STAGS and how it would
work.  The audio from the SOTM talk was interesting, but didn't really
seem to say much (what I took away from it was that it's namespaces for
physical/administrative/natural/[one other thing I can't remember].)  It
doesn't really seem to solve the underlying problem of what to call the
described routes though.

-Alex Mauer "hawke"

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20070717/12b0f70f/attachment.pgp>

More information about the talk mailing list