Andy Allan wrote: > What an absolutely terrible idea. This is astounding daft. If I have
Yes, I am clearly mad. I appreciate that. > chosen to render paths for cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians on > my map, why on earth would I want to accidentally render every other > variant when someone adds it? If I wanted to render every possible > future linear feature without knowing what it was I would use an > elsefilter on planet_osm_line and be done with it. Huh? There's a difference between "any future linear feature" and "any sort of path". Say you've got a place with a variety of paths: bike trails, walking trails, ski trails. Now say that you want to make a map useful for biking that area, but you still want to show the other paths. (so that turning at the "second left" is still accurate) So you render the bike paths in a green broken line. Now, does it make more sense to have single rule for all the other kinds of path that you don't care about to render as a grey broken line, or does it make more sense to have separate extra rules to render footway, bridleway, and four kinds of skiway all in that way? And then someone maps the snowmobile trail that also goes through the area. Is it better that it's now rendered like all the other special-use paths that you don't wish to highlight, or is it better to have to add another rule for snowmobileways? > There's good reasons why every new feature gets a new tag - it's so > that you don't end up accidentally rendering things in a confusing > manner. There's very little to be gained from lumping lots of things > that you'd never want to render identically - no sane map would render > cycle paths, footpaths and snowmobile-only trails identically. So what Incorrect. See above. If one is making a ski or a horse map, why should one care whether some other paths are for foot, bicycle, or snowmobile? But one would still want to render them just to show that they're there. > you're suggesting actually *raises* the bar for renderers since it's > now twice as hard to render just footpaths. Not really. If it's highway=footway or foot=designated, render it as a footpath. Hey, that's how it already should work. Convenient! >> 1. highway=[anything]way. Renderers need to know about every type of >> [thing]way. Impossible to tag a multiple-use way (or ridiculously >> complex anyway -- highway=bicyclefoothorseskisnowmobileway? > > I'm not going to waste time discussing with someone who can't refrain > from adding strawman arguments to everything he discusses. That's no strawman. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Cycle_and_Footway So much for: > the obligation to > research alternative options (rather than just campaigning for one) > surely lies with the proposers. Just by mentioning one of those alternative options, you immediately ignore anything else I have to say. Did you even read the rest of the message? The other two options I considered were much better, and I stated straight away that that one is terrible. -Alex Mauer "hawke" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
