Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > this is valid for England and maybe Scotland and Wales (and > probably some other countries), but it is not working on a > worldwide basis. Your definition would in most of central Europe > not be functioning: routers would lead pedestrians in areas > where they are not allowed to walk (cycleways). Nobody would > tag them with foot=no because it's obvious ;-) that you can't > walk there. foot=yes would be the exception.
Um, yes, I do know the rules vary between countries. There are two ways you can handle that. Firstly, like I say, you can accept that highway=cycleway implies foot=yes and bicycle=yes. Which it does for exactly the same reason that the tags are in English, the server code is in Ruby and this mailing list is called "talk" rather than "frogs": the chap who got there first decides. And your argument that people won't tag "highway=cycleway; foot=no" but will tag "highway=path; bicycle=designated; foot=no" is batshit insane. Or, you can agree that highway=cycleway will mean something different in Germany to the UK. No-one is stopping you from doing this. And, funnily enough, it's exactly what we do with most other values for the highway tag: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway#International_equivalence > When you write about meaning you should keep in mind that > what seems obvious for you isn't for someone with a different > background, but he might rather think that the opposite is obvious. When you write you should make strenuous efforts to be not quite so patronising. :p cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Fwd-Nav4All-navigation-shut-down-by-Navteq-tp4488024p4506379.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
