On 29/03/19 20:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Fr., 29. März 2019 um 08:28 Uhr schrieb Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>>:On 29/03/19 17:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:can you explain how it relates to this proposal? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/AreaThat proposal is very broad , it defines implicit areas of any kind, steps, ramps, flat bits . I think that is too much in one proposal to consider and detail.As far as I see you proposed the same tagging for your proposal, "type=area" for the relation, why so generic if the scope is reduced to area steps?
Compatibility. If/when that goes ahead.
You are also including the same proposed roles and concepts for the stairmodelling, "upper" and "lower". The main difference to the original area relation proposal is that you didn't add the other applications, like defining implicit or adding explicit barrier features and punctual exceptions to these barriers.
I think barriers on stairs could be simply added as separate ways. This would allow for barriers to be across the stairs at any angle, for any length, for any pattern. It requires no additional tags.
Nor am I defining ramps, etc. Just steps is hard enough.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
