On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 13:48, Dian Ågesson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all, > > When this issue was last raised on the mailing list, I suggested the > following tagging schema. > > - highway=rehabilitation > - access=no > - informal=yes > - rehabilitation:highway=path > - source:access=parks agency name > > As has already been raised, deleting these tracks will only result in them > being remapped at a later date. It should be recorded, in some way, so that > the illegality of the path > is stored. It's primary use is land being rehabilitated, secondary to its > illegitimate use. > > By indicating that the land is not a highway, but land undergoing > rehabilitation, the track would: > > > - not be displayed/rendered as a path (at least initially, until a new > rendering was introduced) > - prevent mappers from remapping an illegal, deleted path > - provide details about the source of illegality for later ground > truthing. (a check date tag could be added as well, if needed). > > Thoughts? > > I'm okay with "rehabilitation" as a lifecycle prefix to mean the track has been closed to either rehabilitate naturally on it's own or with some manual intervention. I think it's very similar to the disused prefix which already exists, but no harm in being more explicit. I'm more in favour of only using the lifecycle prefix rehabilitation:highway=path and deprecating the older highway=rehabilitation + rehabilitation=path style tagging (so no highway tag at all in your example), but either works.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
