[OSM-talk] Deprecation/move of incorrect tags

Andy Robinson Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk
Tue Jul 17 11:05:34 BST 2007

Alex L. Mauer wrote:
>Sent: 17 July 2007 10:39 AM
>To: talk at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Deprecation/move of incorrect tags
>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
>> no be suggesting piste type tags for the first round of discussion but
>> 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.

OK, let me get the STAGS structure written up and posted asap and all will
be revealed.



>-Alex Mauer "hawke"

More information about the talk mailing list