Jon Burgess wrote: > The only thing I see an issue with is introducing the specific > 'highway=path' tag. I see this as an unnecessary complication.
I guess it's a matter of perspective. I see it as a simplification: instead of having three categories for one physical feature (and still needing to twist reality in order to fit them in (highway=footway+foot=no+ski=yes, anyone?) you have only one category. >>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 Except the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth, and tenth. Yeah. > you propose like foot=y/n, motorcar=y/n or tracktype=gradeN etc. I propose none of those tags. the first two are part of the initial revision of access=*, and the last I do not propose nor agree with. > I > really don't see what highway=path adds. To quote the wiki page: "A generic path. Either not intended for any particular use, or intended for several different uses." For the nth time, bridleway/cycleway/footway do not cover these. You can look at the list of path examples referred to above to see ones which are not covered. The only one of them which might be is the fifth, and that one is simply not /adequately/ covered. > The one exception is for > snowmobile, for that I'd suggest possibly adding highway=snowmobile > instead. And three kinds of ski and motorcycle. And I'm sure there's some modes of transport that we're missing. Adding them all as highway values is nonsensical. (highway=elephantway?) -Alex Mauer "hawke" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
