On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 15:20 -0500, Alex Mauer wrote: > Tom Hughes wrote: > > > It was "approved" on the basis of a tiny vote on the wiki and I would > > Uh, what? 34 votes is one of the largest votes of any proposed/approved > feature on the wiki. > > > say there is zero chance of most people switching from the tags that > > have been in use for several years to some new scheme that, as I > > understand it, requires about five tags for each path. > > Then I think you misunderstand it. > > Take a look at > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:highway%3Dpath/Examples -- > most require two tags at most. The only one which reaches five > additional tags is the last one. Which doesn't fit into the > bridleway/cycleway/footway paradigm anyway, and is one of the most > complex examples to be found. > > You don't like highway=path, fine. If your tagging needs are met by > bridleway/cycleway/footway, then I'm glad for you. But it's not > adequate for all situations.
The only thing I see an issue with is introducing the specific 'highway=path' tag. I see this as an unnecessary complication. >From a quick glance at the examples given I think they are all covered with combinations of highway=cycleway|footway|track with the other tags you propose like foot=y/n, motorcar=y/n or tracktype=gradeN etc. I really don't see what highway=path adds. The one exception is for snowmobile, for that I'd suggest possibly adding highway=snowmobile instead. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
