On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Roy Wallace <[email protected]> wrote: > Anthony (and others), what did you think of my proposal from two days ago?: > > highway=path (deprecate footway and cycleway!!) > *:legal=yes/no (e.g. bicycle:legal=* - for those who want to map the law) > *:signed=yes/no (e.g. bicycle:signed=* - for those who want to map > what's on the ground) > *:suitable=yes/no (e.g. bicycle:signed=* - for those who want to map > suitability) > designation=* (official classification, i.e. read from a legal document)
The big problem here is that it is completely at odds with what renderers support, and what the rest of the world is/has been doing. What's worse, by using "path", you're taking over a tag currently used primarily to indicate unpaved hiking paths. But it's a start. How about: highway=shared_use (or mup [multi-use path] or shared_path) The point is that these paths generally feature some level of bicycle and pedestrian use. "bicycle:legal=yes/no" - I guess, are there just these two values? Speed limits? "bicycle:signed=yes/no" - seems ok. Although you have the burden of verifying whether each section is signed. And if there's an entry midway along a section that is signed at each end - is it really "signed"? Petty matters though. "bicycle:suitable=yes/no" - definitely want a sliding scale here. "designation=*" - what kind of values do you have here? I would still suggest that in addition to that, there would be: bicycle=yes/no. If you want to map all the fine detail, do so. But don't expect all software to process it all. Give them a hint with this handy tag: "Given this mapper's unstated knowledge of the legal and physical attributes of this path, this mapper's opinion is that bicycles can use it". Steve _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
