On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Now looking at routes the preferred tagging suggested in the wiki is
> different:
> it is suggested to tag all routes the same way, regardless if they are
> signposted, existing or simply proposed, and then differentiate just
> by an ad
state=alternate is used in Belgium and The Netherlands for the cycle and
hiking node networks with numbered nodes. It means that there are 2 routes
connecting 2 numbered nodes. A 'default'/'preferred'/'normal' one and an
alternative one. (shortcut, more pittoresque). This implies that 2 route
relat
On Fri, 2011-12-02 at 12:29 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Maybe I was exaggerating. Generally I don't see a big difference
> between routes and ways, and tags that change the overall meaning of
> other tags significantly should be avoided in favour of more
> fail-proof solutions. If a tag st
2011/12/2 Paul Johnson :
> Are you sure you're not getting route and way tagging confused here?
> What's wrong with the state=proposed tag on relations already in
> widespread use (by both taggers and data consumers)?
Maybe I was exaggerating. Generally I don't see a big difference
between routes
On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 15:17 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> But I'd like to propose to adopt the scheme to that of highways and
> change the tagging to:
> route=proposed
> proposed=bicycle (for instance).
Are you sure you're not getting route and way tagging confused here?
What's wrong with t
On 12/1/2011 9:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
But I'd like to propose to adopt the scheme to that of highways and
change the tagging to:
route=proposed
proposed=bicycle (for instance).
What do you think?
I don't know. Usually a proposed bicycle route is still of interest to
cyclists.
___
We have some suggestions how to map features in construction, proposed
features and abandoned / disused features. To avoid misinterpretation
by "simple" data consumers, and to avoid that an additional attribute
changes the overall meaning of a tag (existing feature vs.
non-existing feature) we have
