Le mardi 26 février 2013 à 15:19 -0500, Richard Welty a écrit : > i think it has the potential to be confusing, in part because tracktype > already exists > for highway=track, and tracktype is entirely about actual physical > characteristics. > > i suspect it is a mistake to try to aggregate logical information about > a path's > significance (or the significance of its endpoints) with information > about its > physical characteristics.
I don't think. Aggregating logical and physical information create a new kind of information. When you take a map (typically 1/25000 map) you need to have a summarised information combining a lot of criteria. It is one of the major issue of building generals maps It's already the case in OSM. Choosing between highway=primary and highway=secondary in a mixture between 3 informations : * utility * quality * administrative For example, in the wiki for highway=primary : "U.S. Highways are MOSTLY primary." "Some State Roads or State Routes MAY also be primary, if they have a significant role in linking two MAJOR CITIES." If you think pathtype=grade1-5 is a bad name, it's not the most important, and I am not opposed to change it. Balaitous _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
