On 2016-06-24 11:47, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2016-06-24 11:20 GMT+02:00 Colin Smale <[email protected]>:
>
>> In OSM there has always been "space" to add new detail. What one person
>> finds a ridiculous level of micro-mapping, someone else may consider
>> valuable data. For example, I as a cyclist am not bothered about maxheight=*
>> but truck drivers are. In the past there has been no clear process evident
>> for deciding where to draw the line. If someone wants to create a navigation
>> model for learner drivers, then why not? Who are we to say "that doesn't
>> belong in OSM"? Where are the rules for that? Our job as a community is to
>> guide the development of the tagging so that it is fit for purpose (now and
>> looking into the future) and compatible with what is already there.
>
> is this a confirmation that there are no individual signs and that this is a
> general rule applying to all motorways?
Yes, you are right about that (in the case of the UK anyway). So a
"router for learners" should infer the prohibition from
"highway=motorway" or "highway=motorway_link". Motorways (and a couple
of trunk roads) in the UK actually have a funny status called "special
road" - they are not a public highway, and no traffic is allowed except
what is explicitly permitted by law.
> The problem I see with adding tags like this (presumed that the previous
> sentence is correct) is that they tend to obfuscate the "important" tags,
> because when you start to add to every road and park and forest "carrying
> firearms not allowed unless you have a specific license" and thousands of
> tags for all other generic rules of law in your country, the list of tags
> becomes _very_ long. I've already encountered roads without a highway tag,
> but with long lists of foot=yes, bicycle=yes, vehicle=yes, motor_vehicle=yes,
> hgv=yes, psv=yes, ...
I know what you mean Martin... +1...
//colin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
