On 20 April 2011 10:46, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andy Allan wrote: > > Ooh, a golden opportunity to point out (to Richard of all people :-) ) > > that the key / value pairs are just arbitrary UTF8 strings and can > > mean whatever we want them to mean. So the letters n-e-t-w-o-r-k > > could mean "importance classification" and n-c-n could mean > > "cycling route of national importance" and we can all go home > > happy. > > So now I can point out to you that "arbitrary importance scales are > generally considered harmful in OSM" and we can have that argument too. It > just gets better. ;) > > Your map, your call. Personally I'd be very saddened to see the National > Byway rendered in the same way as the National Cycle Network as I think > it'd (a) look shit (b) not be helpful to users. But it's not my map. > What tagging would you expect us to use within OSM to identify something as being part of this network? Fyi, I notice that highway=byway is depreciated by the wiki and that designation=restricted_byway is proposed in its place. There is a scattering of both tags in the current OSM DB, but nothing that creates a coherent network. I am also not convinced that either of these are the right tag for this purpose. When we agree what the tags should be used then ITO can host an overlay map showing the view and maintain it going forward using ITO Map. We might even be able to get the National Byways website to include a slippy map on their website based on it. Regards, Peter Miller ITO World Ltd > cheers > Richard > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
