2011/11/22 Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>: > On 22/11/2011 21:33, Frederik Ramm wrote: > When you say "No", don't you mean "Yes"? Not sure if you are responding to > the original post, or to my reaction. All it says on the proposal page is "A > road that gets tidally flooded" . Where do you get your assumptions from > about it being an unsurfaced path?
You are right that this proposal is not necessarily about an unsurfaced way, it could well be covered with asphalt. A "path" like we see it in OSM is a way that is not suitable for cars (too small), while this is about roads (width should permit a car to take it). > The scenario I had in mind was the Lindisfarne Causeway in northern > England.This is never "closed", but is flooded at high tide. Many people are > rescued every year because they don't heed the warnings. Doesn't that fit > your description? Check this: http://g.co/maps/f74xb Yes, this would fit the proposed tag. As you can see from your picture not beeing aware about the tide situation can cost your life. IMHO this kind of road merits its own main highway tag, it would be too dangerous to rely on subtags, and it's overall characteristics are too different from a "normal road" (a road which doesn't get regularily flooded). cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
