On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Nathan Mills <nat...@nwacg.net> wrote:
> Had it been discussed beforehand so that other consumers would be aware of > the meaning of the new tag, I wouldn't personally have a problem with it. It would be far better to create an additional tag rather than replacing a standard tag as it wouldn't break existing tools and apps. > access=no is also a decent suggestion Yes, if, and only if, access really is prohibited. > there is likely a quantitative difference between these informal trails > and the official ones, so it makes sense to have a different tag value. > In which case we should map those quantities, e.g. width=*, visibility=*, surface=*, smoothness=*, sac_scale=*, mtb:scale=*, etc. The official_status tag[1] might be useful here. They could tag their official trails "official_status=Caliparks:official" and the other trails "official_status=Caliparks:unofficial" Mike [1] wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Official_status > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
