On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 2:01 PM, Peter Wendorff <wendo...@uni-paderborn.de>wrote:
> Am 07.10.2011 20:18, schrieb David Earl: > > >> The additional highway:steps would stay at separate ways "on top" of the >>> area. >>> >> >> This shouldn't be necessary, any more than any other highway area. It's >> like putting a node for parking in the middle of a parking area. >> > I don't see how you are able to tag the direction (up/down) of the steps on > an area, so yes, the additional "traditional" way IS necessary. > The direction of steps is highly relevant for several reasons: > * Steps going upwards are no dangerous place for children - they cannot > fall down with their bikes etc. > * For blind people steps upwards are an obstacle easily detectable by the > blind mans stick; stairs down are more dangerous and more difficult. > * A good bicycle routing application could be configurable to allow stairs > downwards e.g. for mountain bikes, while avoiding stairs upwards, as these > are more difficult to use by bike. > > This double-tagging seems sensible. At least it would be analogous to using the "riverbank" area for wide rivers, but still maintaining a "river" way for network/flow direction purposes. Brad > regards > Peter > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
