[OSM-talk] tagging trailblazes / marked paths

Jon Burgess jburgess777 at googlemail.com
Tue Aug 5 21:42:12 BST 2008


On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 15:20 -0500, Alex Mauer wrote:
> Tom Hughes wrote:
> 
> > It was "approved" on the basis of a tiny vote on the wiki and I would 
> 
> Uh, what?  34 votes is one of the largest votes of any proposed/approved
> feature on the wiki.
> 
> > say there is zero chance of most people switching from the tags that 
> > have been in use for several years to some new scheme that, as I 
> > understand it, requires about five tags for each path.
> 
> Then I think you misunderstand it.
> 
> Take a look at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:highway%3Dpath/Examples --
> most require two tags at most.  The only one which reaches five
> additional tags is the last one.  Which doesn't fit into the
> bridleway/cycleway/footway paradigm anyway, and is one of the most
> complex examples to be found.
> 
> You don't like highway=path, fine.  If your tagging needs are met by
> bridleway/cycleway/footway, then I'm glad for you.  But it's not
> adequate for all situations.

The only thing I see an issue with is introducing the specific
'highway=path' tag. I see this as an unnecessary complication.

>From a quick glance at the examples given I think they are all covered
with combinations of highway=cycleway|footway|track with the other tags
you propose like foot=y/n, motorcar=y/n or tracktype=gradeN etc. I
really don't see what highway=path adds. The one exception is for
snowmobile, for that I'd suggest possibly adding highway=snowmobile
instead.







More information about the talk mailing list