[OSM-talk] Highways with highway=steps

[Peter Miller]

> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:21:28 +0200
> From: Knut Arne Bj?rndal <bob+osm at cakebox.net>
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Highways with highway=steps
> To: Dave Stubbs <osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk>
> Cc: talk at openstreetmap.org
> Message-ID: <20070928132127.GI13587 at cakebox.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:39:34PM +0100, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> > On 28/09/2007, Knut Arne Bj?rndal <bob+osm at cakebox.net> wrote:
> > > "Peter Miller" <peter.miller at itoworld.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Can you also get maplint to accept:-
> > >
> > > I suspect you are talking about the not-in-map_features test, which is
> (mostly) automatically created from map features, so anything there should
> be accepted after a developer runs the updating script.
> > >
> > > > ncn=yes
> > >
> > > I found route=ncn in map features, I suspect that does what you want.
> >
> > kind of falls apart when you're doing route=ncn;rcn etc... there were
> > a number of suggestions for fixing this, but they mostly make it
> > difficult to render, or seriously confusing to use.
> >
> > the cycle map [1] just renders anything with "ncn" as NCN and anything
> > with "rcn" as regional routes. It lets you do other things too such as
> > "ncn => proposed", although nothing clever is done yet when you add
> > that. If you have the "ncn_ref" tag there then you can just leave off
> > the route tag completely as far as the renderer is concerned.
> >
> > Little of this is in map features and none of it has been voted on. It
> > is being used though.
> 
> Well, the point of this test is to highlight things that aren't in map
> features...
>

A very fair point. Possibly the main incentive to bother to get features
into Map Features is just for this reason, so that Maplint doesn't complain
about them! People are free to do whatever they like in the DB, but Maplint
will only follow Map Features. I was also musing of a 'clean' version of
planet.osm, in addition to the 'let-it-all-hang-out' version, that only
includes approved tags, to make using OSM less confusing for new people and
again to encourage the voting and agreement process. Possibly, with
rendering, the 'approved' rendering should follow approved features, but
people are free to add whatever they like to development renderers? I am
digressing, but I think it is good to think about how to allow creativity
and anarchism, but also create harmony and standardisation over time, and I
think we have all the ingredients, we just need to use them and set the
rules up correctly. 


Peter

> --
> Knut Arne Bj?rndal
> aka Bob K?re
> bob+osm at cakebox.net
> bobkare at irc
> -------------- next part --------------