[OSM-talk] tagging trailblazes / marked paths
Andy Allan
gravitystorm at gmail.com
Wed Aug 6 11:40:41 BST 2008
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:07 AM, Alex Mauer <hawke at hawkesnest.net> wrote:
> Incorrect. You neglected to account for the existing tags on those
> 509k/425k. There's actually a net gain (reduction) in the number of
> tags needed. The simplest cases (cycleway/footway/bridleway) are
> identical, obviously. But now a specialty route which is not a c/f/b is
> both more intuitive (no highway=footway+foot=no needed) and requires
> fewer tags (highway=path + snowmobile=designated instead of
> highway=footway + foot=no + snowmobile=designated for example).
highway=footway + foot=no is simply garbage, and shows that you don't
really understand how the tagging is supposed to work. The
footway/cycleway/bridleway is just three very common examples. If you
particular thing doesn't fit into any of them (e.g. these snowmobile
things, or ice-climbing pitches) then there's no need to crowbar them
in with such conceptual acrobatics. Highway=snowmobileway would be a
single-tag solution for snowmobile tracks that you aren't allowed to
do anything else on.
> Upheaval?
People in charge of renderers being asked why highway=path,
cycleway=designated doesn't show up when highway=cycleway does, when
they could spend time on more useful things which add value to the
maps.
> Dual-tagging regime?
See preceding sentence. I also refer you to the instances of the work
"or" in the example page you keep linking to.
> Neither have happened here
Untrue.
> And IMO if someone knew of a less disruptive, more intuitive change to
> make, they should have mentioned it during the 6 months that the
> proposal was in the wiki.
I'm not obliged to spend my time patiently explaining the
counterarguments to every proposal on the wiki - the obligation to
research alternative options (rather than just campaigning for one)
surely lies with the proposers.
Cheers,
Andy
More information about the talk
mailing list