On Mon, 2014-09-22 at 00:23 +0200, Tomasz Ka┼║mierczak wrote:
..A good suggestion ...

So it seems that yet again, we are going to reject this attempt to solve
a real problem. Looking at the neg replies, because its not useful for
bike riders; not useful for a number of undefined edge cases; is a
duplicate of surface=.

Thats just plain not true ! There is no suggestion that paved= should be
used instead of surface=. I use surface= on all unsealed roads I map and
would continue to do so if I also used paved=no.

But there are 34 official values for surface= and 3581 values used. It
is very plain that the mapping community want surface= as a fine
grained, very detailed key. And thats great, people making specialised
maps or engines can use those values, display them in a meaningful way
to people they understand. My data will help them.

But the vast majority of people just want to know that the road may not
be what they are used to. Thats all. And paved= does that easily.

In places like Australia, that information can be a life or death thing.
People die here because they are inexperienced or ill equipped for roads
they tackle. Generally visitors from Europe or North America. 

Please folks, think of the big picture, not the edge cases.


Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to