On 12/08/2009, at 10:38 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > But if there is "no default" for foot, then what is > routing software to do? If it uses the way, the default is yes, and > if > doesn't, it's no. So the notion of no default does not make at lot of > sense to me. ... > With highway=path, the wiki page does not give the semantics when > there > are no tags. For highway=path and no tags, is that horse=yes or > horse=no? Is it paved or not if there is no tag?
What I'm trying to say is that not having the tag would mean "currently unknown" rather than "depends on local defaults", and so someone should find out and add the missing tag. The same way that not having a maxspeed tag indicated that we don't know what the maximum speed limit is, rather than there not being a limit. Obviously software processing the data will need to pick a default, but while editing it would mean that someone should improve the tags. > The biggest problem is that there needs to be an unambiguous mapping > From these highway=foo tags to the implied value of the access > subtags. > The next biggest is non-operational semi-circular definitions like > 'highway=cycleway' being for 'designated cycleways' which talk about > 'intent', although in practice one would ask (in en_US) "do most > people > think this is a bike path". I think it's mostly around the use of the word "designated". Some people (including me) take that to mean "there is a sign, or other signal present saying that it's for bicycles", but other people obviously disagree. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
