Richard Mann wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Andre Engels <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Dave F. <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >> In other words, whenever I see a path somewhere, I should say > nothing > >> about who it is for? Just let the user of the map or the builder of > >> the mapping software decide? That may be pure, it is not practical. > >> > > That's not what I'm saying, & you know it. > > Oh, now you know what I know better than I do? I HAVE HAD IT WITH > YOU! GOODBY > > Dave - you seem to be in the "there isn't a problem" camp. Sorry Richard, but I think there is something wrong - people making it up as they go along. Some think it's acceptable to tag something, say, as a cycleway just because they think it is, when it could actually be officially defined as a non cycling route.
That is clearly wrong. & just because some refuse to acknowledge that or continue their argument with "and another thing..." still doesn't make it right. > Repeating that assertively doesn't make it any more or less true I wouldn't repeat it if a valid argument against was put forward. But, as Andre said - goodby(e) _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
