Putting information about the legal default into OSM is not the problem. It’s just that nobody has developed a schema for it yet. And to repeat myself for the Xth time, I fully agree that it is a good idea to work out such a schema.
Interpreting the law and putting the result of that interpretation into the map at every single place where it applies, which a computer could do just as well if it knew what the legal default is, is a huge problem and should not be done. From: Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> Sent: Friday, 6 April 2018 12:58 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org> Subject: Re: [Tagging] no_u_turn restrictions for every entry/exit into a roundabout when the way is split because of physical separation? On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 8:50 PM, <osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au <mailto:osm.tagg...@thorsten.engler.id.au> > wrote: > I find it's less than productive for finding solutions to problems the > wiki is currently advising to leave unresolved (such as this), or > ambiguous (like primary vs trunk vs motorway in the US). It doesn't tell you to leave the problem unsolved. It only tells you that tagging the legal default if there is nothing on the ground is not the correct solution to the problem. Right, something I really think is quite a weak point right now. Especially when even if it's not on the ground, at least in the US jurisdiction, works of the government are readily reproducible. What makes deriving the data from the legal code on a government website any different, from, say, tracing NAIP aerial imagery?
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
