[OSM-talk] Path vs footway vs cycleway vs...

[Roy Wallace]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to
>> successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all
>> countries?
>
> What do you think? Work with me, here.

I think that would be a nightmare, and would not work. If anything, it
would introduce MORE inconsistency due to 1) difficulty maintaining
the lawbook and 2) a more complicated set of guidelines and more
complicated wiki, making it even LESS likely that people will follow
it consistently.

As I've said, I'd prefer to stick to *mapping what's on the ground*,
*according to the guidelines in the wiki*. This is the only way to get
global consistency, which I think is important for the reasons I've
already described.

>> Let's get the tagging schemes right first. Seriously, it's not
>> going to be a big deal to e.g. add foot=yes/no to cycleways.
>
> You: It's easy to add "foot=yes".
> Me: It's hard to get everyone to consistently add "foot=yes".
>
> Just so we're clear on that. Can we move on?

Me: It *will be* easy to get everyone to consistently add "foot=yes" when:
1) I can convince you guys that this approach is the best way to get
global consistency, and that that's important;
2) people realise that editors can be used to avoid additional
keystrokes and so there is actually no cost in adding foot=yes;
3) this mess is sorted out, and the guidelines for
path/footway/cycleway are consolidated and improved (made clear)

Re: 3), I often hear people say "it's such a mess, I gave up asking on
the email list and now I just use cycleway when [ insert custom
definition ]".

>> Let's get the tagging right first - editor improvements will follow.
>>
> If by "get the tagging right" you mean "analyse the problem, work out what
> people are doing, and come up with the most efficient set of tags for people
> to use", then yes. But I don't think you mean that.

I do mean that! Assuming that, by "most efficient", you mean "most
likely to result in a complete and consistent map of the Earth". And
before you say "but that's not necessarily efficient", part of being
"likely to result in a good outcome" is that mappers remain motivated
to contribute - so this does take into account that the tags have to
be satisfying to use.