[OSM-talk] A warning about gates and other barriers
wendorff at uni-paderborn.de
Mon Sep 20 10:31:42 BST 2010
On 20.09.2010 10:12, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> M?rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> I prefer asuming that a gate is closed (I tag them with access=private
>> in these cases anyway) or you have to indicate allowed traffic
>> (foot=yes, bicycle=yes, etc.)). Why do we have to have a default?
> The default should be applied by the software evaluating the data. The
> default is not an "OpenStreetMap default" but an "application
> default". A conservative routing engine might assume an unspecified
> gate to always be closed, while others might simply apply a slight
> penalty for a route containing a gate, or even assume it is alway open.
Here we come to a great possibility for software to contribute to the
Wherever possible the software should provide a mechanism to add the
data, if needed.
Of course a conservative setting would avoid gates for being sure, but
even that could be adjustable for the user: "I have time, it doesn't
matter to turn around at wrong data - but I will fix it then".
I think, in future we need end user software with the ability to edit
the OSM, because mapping new stuff is much easier and makes more fun
than to fix small errors.
talk at openstreetmap.org
More information about the talk