2009/8/10 Nop <ekkeh...@gmx.de> > > > Hi! > > Liz schrieb: > > would a suggestion made on the talk-au list in which highway=footway and > > highway=cycleway be deprecated and be replaced by > > I think we should step back one step. > > The discussion here seems about to fall victim to the same mechanisms > that produced the present chaos. Different people/groups think they have > solved the problem for their (local) use cases and are arguing in favor > of their solution, which usually involves interpreting existing tags in > a specific way. I am glad that this topic has come up - and of course I > have my own ready-made suggestion for a solution - but I suggest we look > at the problems and goals again before we go for a specific solution > attempt. > > > I think the main questions are: > > - Can we agree on a common interpretation of what foot/cycleway are > supposed to mean? > - Do we want a general meaning for every country, delegating local > specifics to other tags, or a local meaning dependent on a countries > specific conditions? > > - Can we use the existing access-Tags to describe the exact rules of > traffic e.g. in Germany (which seems to have the highest requirements so > far) and agree on the meaning there, too, or do we need to invent a > whole new scheme for local specifics? > > - Do we tag generic trails as highway=path or does this tag have a more > complex meaning? > > Can we try to discuss the problem at this level before proposing > detailed tagging schemes? > > > There is also the questions which is important but should not be mixed in: > > - how can we get a coherent tagging model for OSM? > > +1 For the general email. Agreeing on the definition first is always a good first step to construct something.
Emilie Laffray
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
