On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 1:17 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote: > Now looking at routes the preferred tagging suggested in the wiki is > different: > it is suggested to tag all routes the same way, regardless if they are > signposted, existing or simply proposed, and then differentiate just > by an additional key ( state ). > > This tag is somehow established: > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/state#values
That's because it's supported by OpenCycleMap, which tends to trump any petty discussions on mailing lists like this... > But I'd like to propose to adopt the scheme to that of highways and > change the tagging to: > route=proposed > proposed=bicycle (for instance). > > What do you think? Presumably you mean proposed=cycleway. A few points: - there's a difference between a proposed route and a proposed cycleway. Around here, a proposed route frequently makes use of some existing cycleways, and some to be constructed. - I think the highway=x, x=y mechanism is inferior to highway=y, state=x. So I'd rather be inconsistent and use the superior mechanism. - It would be nice if there was a way to indicate that a route as a whole is "under construction", but parts of it are actually open and built. (This situation can remain for years, see http://railtrails.org.au/states/trails.php3?action=trail&trail=21) Currently the only way to do that is to break the route relation into pieces and merge them later. - I think in general the notion of "route=proposed" makes a lot less sense than "highway=proposed". You could argue that a route "exists" as soon as it is proposed. Whereas the point of the "highway=proposed" tag is that the highway *doesn't* exist, and even at "highway=construction", it's just dirt, not a road. Steve _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
