On 4 May 2015 at 08:35, David Bannon <[email protected]> wrote:
> It could be compared to using highway=. I'd be pretty surprised if you > have not used that at some stage. But in fact, the "interface" to > camp_site= is heaps cleaner than to highway= ! Whats the basic > difference between "residential" and "unclassified", how many houses > along the side of a primary road need be there ? And if we tag =track, > suddenly different rendering rules seem to apply. > > Indeed. I did some analysis at the time of the redaction about the length of primary/secondary/tertiary/unclassified/residential in certain areas. And there was a significant variation between the different city areas in Australia. I didn't follow up enough, but I'd surmise that particularly primary/secondary/tertiary tags have significant different use by different mappers. > Truth is, we like to classify things, places and people into groups, it > is how we handle the complexity of the world, we do it unconsciously and > often blur the edges. But we need to do it ! > Of course, but it's the point at which that classification it is done. Is the OSMer classifying things for the benefit of the end-user? Or would the end-user rather classify things differently depending on their use? Would a remote area hiker classify camp-sites differently to a Big-4 coastal tourer? Ian.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
