[OSM-talk] [Fwd: Re: Proliferation of path vs. footway]

[Roy Wallace]

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 4:24 AM, David Earl<david at frankieandshadow.com> wrote:
> So what you're saying is that
...
> - we have to massively increase the amount of data we store by saying
> for every road that it is open 24 hours a day (because some aren't) and
> has a 44 tonne weight limit (or whatever it is by default in your
> country) except for the few cases where it isn't; all cycleways don't
> permit llama pack animals (because some in Peru do) and all motorways
> explicitly do or don't permit horse drawn vehicles.

I call red herring! (English idiom: a distraction)

You seem to be implying that increasing the amount of data in OSM is a
bad thing???

Of course, llama access restrictions probably aren't a top priority,
but it IS a GOOD THING to have llama restrictions in the database.

The core issue here (that I believe we agree on) is that if tags have
inconsistent implications, they must be made explicit.