On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What is your response to that? In particular, >> >> 1) What do you think has caused the current problem (i.e. tags like >> footway/cycleway/bicycle being used with inconsistent meanings) > > I've actually not been following the recent threads on this (only so much > time in the day) so I'm a bit underinformed.: > > 1) The genuine ambiguity of the situation. Roads are roads, rivers are > rivers...but what the hell *is* the difference between a bike path and a > footpath? > 2) The underlying British assumption that legal concepts like "right of way" > are fundamental to mapping. > 3) Variation in bike path laws and usage around the world. > 4) Lack of interaction and conflict between mappers around the world. If a > German mapper maps one way, and an Australian does it another way, it takes > a very long time for anyone to notice a problem. > 5) Lack of clear centralised definitions with sufficient authority.
Ok, nice list. I would argue that 1-4 have become a problem due to the use of tagging with broad, fuzzy, non-verifiable, subjective categories. When this happens, tags are used and interpreted differently by different people. >> 2) Do you think your proposal will solve the current problem? If so, how? > > What proposal? I've thrown around a few ideas, I don't think I've put forth > a specific proposal on bike paths yet have I? Ok fair enough, but I get the impression you have a preference for tagging fuzzy categories and against tagging explicit information. I'm just offering a word of warning. > Erm, "fuzzy categories" are the norm. When someone marks highway=cycleway > that *is* a "fuzzy category". I know. > What you keep on insisting on, mapping width, > surface, etc etc - that would be unusual. Well, they're established tags but yeah, ok. > Not that it's necessarily bad to > map this way, but I don't think that proposing that everyone *must* map this > way will work. Ok, well I'm not so sure...I think it's worth a try, given we've already tried fuzzy categories and that hasn't worked. > But to be clear: I don't have any immediate answers, just > some ideas. I'm not at the point of demonstrating anything. Yep fair enough, I'll consider my point taken and leave you alone for now :) > One example that occurred to me yesterday while riding along...a bike path. > I reached a section in a park where there was a path made up of pavers set > in grass. Now, I could describe "surface=pavers, width=0.75" etc. But how > would someone, even given all this information, know whether it was good to > ride on? I think you're probably going to need to see the specific thing. In > this case, it was a crappy surface, clearly designed for pedestrians only, > but it went somewhere useful, so maybe I'd use it again, if I had to. Well, ask yourself: what verifiable information about this path can I share with others? That's what you should tag. In this example, "surface=pavers, width=0.75" sounds fine to me. Note that you said "clearly designed for pedestrians only", and in the same sentence "so maybe I'd use it [on a bicycle] again". What fuzzy category would this fall under? Anyway, look forward to seeing what you come up with. Cheers. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
