|
2016-11-16 2:04 GMT+01:00 Nelson A. de
Oliveira <nao...@gmail.com>:
The "danger" you're talking about is otherwise called a "hazard". I have mentioned several times that a Proposed features/hazard exists that, IMHO, is very well done. But OSM doesn't seem to care about hazards, especially children related, except you and I and a few. That page needs some care, but, as things go, it can be removed in secret any time like Relations/Proposed/Defaults which, maybe not in that form, is badly needed because it would put default values inside the OSM database instead of scattered everywhere. One should not remove a badly needed proposition, but mark it "don't use", "unsuitable', "to be reworked" ... I would have liked to tackle the job but I've had too many disappointments from the answers on these lists and my time is used by other hobbies. As to "access=destination", previous answers said alright that danger is not a legal matter. I personally don't think of that as legality but as instructions for routing, whether and how a GPS can use that road. access=* shouldn't be mixed with other considerations like it was done with access=dedicated. Only the length of the discussions it has generated is a proof of that. Normal access=* rules are very clear cut. But on the wiki, you can read that access=dedicated is meaningless in Belgium and on Belgian pages, the instructions are to use it. Go figure. So, go and finalize Proposed features/hazard, making sure they include what you think of. Cheers
|
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
