>Wow, I'm totally jealous of the landscape. >However, I don't think marking these as "routes" is appropriate. For >cycle routes we have the rough description that "Cycle routes are >named or numbered or otherwise signed routes, which may go along roads >or dedicated cycle paths. ". I don't see anything objective in some >guy's opinion of a way to get up and down a hill. If any random >collection of paths counts as a personal "route" then I would be able >to create routes all over my neighbourhood along the lines of
><tag k="type" v="route"/> ><tag k="operator" v="Andy Allan"/> ><tag k="route" v="foot"/> ><tag k="name" v="Andy Allan's way to the shops, this time using Main >Street instead of Oxford Road"/> >... and the whole idea of routes being objective, signed etc flies out >the window. For comparison, the foot routes around London that I've >been rendering are all officially signed. There is a right and a wrong >since there is evidence on the ground, and there is an "operator" >since a local authority is responsible for them. So it's not >subjective in any way. >If you want to mark them in using relations, please find tags other >than type=route, route=foot in order to distinguish them from real >objective routes. And this guy doesn't "operate" them in any sense of >the word, so I'd ask you to avoid that tag also. I guess this comes down as to whether things like walking routes should be stored in OSM itself or put in a different project. I guess we don't want to overload OSM with walking routes; however Freemap does aim to overlay walking routes on top of the OSM base map. Nick _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
