In your letter dated Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:35:12 +0200 you wrote: >Philip Homburg wrote: >> Consistent, yes. Whether it makes any sense, I don't know. Allowing pedestri >ans >> on trunk roads be not on cycling paths or on a bridleway doesn't make much >> sense to me. >It may not make sense to you (and neither to me) but this is how things >are at present. I could ofcourse just set another 'standard' with my >site but that won't help OSM in general. Having people seriously >thinking about proper tagging is one of my goals when I started it.
It's not clear to me how much thought went into that default access restrictions page. I wonder how many 'casual' mappers are going to take the trouble to add 'food=yes' to all cyclepaths, just because some random person they don't know decided on a weird default? >You can use your own routing parameters with Gosmore on a PDA or PC if >yournavigation.org does not suit you. Although I'd rather see an effort >trying to make OSM tagging standards better. That way everyone will benefit. I don't really like the user interface of gosmore (under Unix). Your website is much more appealing. And it has the advantage that you can point random people to a website. >> Not that there is any hurry. I first want to have a version of gosmore that >> does what I want when it comes to oneway and cycling. >> >Are you going to suggest specific improvements or, even better, supply >patches? Those would be most welcome. I find the source of gosmore very hard to understand. So it may take a while before I will be able to do anything useful. _______________________________________________ Routing mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/routing
