On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:07 AM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Incorrect. You neglected to account for the existing tags on those > 509k/425k. There's actually a net gain (reduction) in the number of > tags needed. The simplest cases (cycleway/footway/bridleway) are > identical, obviously. But now a specialty route which is not a c/f/b is > both more intuitive (no highway=footway+foot=no needed) and requires > fewer tags (highway=path + snowmobile=designated instead of > highway=footway + foot=no + snowmobile=designated for example). highway=footway + foot=no is simply garbage, and shows that you don't really understand how the tagging is supposed to work. The footway/cycleway/bridleway is just three very common examples. If you particular thing doesn't fit into any of them (e.g. these snowmobile things, or ice-climbing pitches) then there's no need to crowbar them in with such conceptual acrobatics. Highway=snowmobileway would be a single-tag solution for snowmobile tracks that you aren't allowed to do anything else on. > Upheaval? People in charge of renderers being asked why highway=path, cycleway=designated doesn't show up when highway=cycleway does, when they could spend time on more useful things which add value to the maps. > Dual-tagging regime? See preceding sentence. I also refer you to the instances of the work "or" in the example page you keep linking to. > Neither have happened here Untrue. > And IMO if someone knew of a less disruptive, more intuitive change to > make, they should have mentioned it during the 6 months that the > proposal was in the wiki. I'm not obliged to spend my time patiently explaining the counterarguments to every proposal on the wiki - the obligation to research alternative options (rather than just campaigning for one) surely lies with the proposers. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
