On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Roy Wallace <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Yeah, the /examples subpage is great, too. Serious question: does anyone use the tag this way? My concern is that renderers generally just look at the key (path) and render it as though it was a dirt path (dotted brown line). Whereas you're essentially saying they should look at all the tags together, and possibly render as a footway, a cycleway, etc. And that might be asking too much. > Sure, go for it (I never map "suitability", but if you must... :P) Well, I don't map "kids_area", so ner. > 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). That's not how it's used, and you know it. :) > 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 Go jump. Steve _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
