On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Fair points, I guess, but I don't think they're big disadvantages. Firstly, we're not going to get anywhere if we are bound by what the renderers *currently* support - and keep in mind that they can catch up very quickly if necessary. As for "what the rest of the world is/has been doing", haven't they been using footway/cycleway etc with various meanings, hence causing this problem? I think any proposed solution *that will work* must indeed by "at odds" with the current situation. That said, I think the proposal would be quite easy to transition to - the main difference is explicitly qualifying what is meant by "yes/no", and deprecating the inconsistent and confusing usage of footway/cycleway. > What's worse, by using "path", you're taking over a tag currently used > primarily to indicate unpaved hiking paths. I disagree - from the wiki: highway=path is "a route open to the public which is not intended for motor vehicles with four or more wheels". I think highway=path is perfect. It's plain English. > 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. I don't see any need for this. Why are you mapping "some level of...use?". This is not explicit. If you must, this should be explicitly indicated with highway=path + bicycle:usage=some + foot:usage=some. > "bicycle:legal=yes/no" - I guess, are there just these two values? Speed > limits? I think two values is sufficient, and is consistent with current practice. For speed limits, use maxspeed (you might be interested in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Extended_conditions_for_access_tags) > "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. Yup, petty :) > "bicycle:suitable=yes/no" - definitely want a sliding scale here. Sure, go for it (I never map "suitability", but if you must... :P) > "designation=*" - what kind of values do you have here? Values are jurisdiction-dependent. At this stage I think this is mainly used in the UK (?) where they have access to legal documents that say e.g. this is "an XYZ-type path", etc. (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:designation). > 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". Hmm. I see your point, but I don't like your definition. If anything, bicycle=yes/no should keep its current definition, i.e., equivalent to bicycle:legal=yes/no (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access). If you want to invent a tag that refers to "the mapper's opinion" (!), then I would recommend using bicycle:Steve's_opinion=yes. :P _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
