Hi!
First say that I appreciate your proposal for improve the tagging of paths, is
one of my interests too. I immediately understood what are you saying with
«cul de sac» (I'm catalan!), and I take this opportunity to say that cul
de sac path of Gavernie is fantastic and highly recommended path
Hola, estas un vecino, vivo en Toulouse !
Discúlpame, solo entiendo el español, no entiendo el catalan.
More generally, I think there is a problem with path tagging, and we
must work about new propositions before voting anything.
The actual set of tags does not adequately describe paths.
* A
Am 28.02.2013 00:05, schrieb Balaitous:
Hi,
You insinuate that I want to remove the other tags characterizing paths.
This is false.
What I propose is a new tag providing a summarized information, such
that no algorithm can do.
Besides, I think we should also tag of the markup, like
Hi,
You insinuate that I want to remove the other tags characterizing paths.
This is false.
What I propose is a new tag providing a summarized information, such
that no algorithm can do.
Besides, I think we should also tag of the markup, like
markup=yes/no
markup:quality= scale from 1 to 5
Le mardi 26 février 2013 à 15:19 -0500, Richard Welty a écrit :
i think it has the potential to be confusing, in part because tracktype
already exists
for highway=track, and tracktype is entirely about actual physical
characteristics.
i suspect it is a mistake to try to aggregate logical
Le lundi 25 février 2013 à 18:27 -0500, Richard Welty a écrit :
On 2/25/13 5:17 PM, Balaitous wrote:
Hi,
I have wrote a proposition of classification for path.
You can see it at :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pathtype
given the descriptions on the proposal
i think it has the potential to be confusing, in part because tracktype
already exists
for highway=track, and tracktype is entirely about actual physical
characteristics.
i suspect it is a mistake to try to aggregate logical information about
a path's
significance (or the significance of its
Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
i think it has the potential to be confusing, in part because
tracktype
already exists
for highway=track, and tracktype is entirely about actual physical
characteristics.
i suspect it is a mistake to try to aggregate logical information
about
On 2/25/13 5:17 PM, Balaitous wrote:
Hi,
I have wrote a proposition of classification for path.
You can see it at :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pathtype
given the descriptions on the proposal page, how would you categorize
this path:
Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net wrote:
On 2/25/13 5:17 PM, Balaitous wrote:
Hi,
I have wrote a proposition of classification for path.
You can see it at :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pathtype
given the descriptions on the proposal page, how would you
On 2/25/13 6:52 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
Also, the proposed path types would classify any path that ends in a cul-de-sac
as the least-used and least-maintained category, which isn't necessarily the
case.
i think i'll summarize thusly: the proposal tries to combine distinctly
different
11 matches
Mail list logo
