On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:00:06AM +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > Il giorno 11/ago/2014, alle ore 10:30, Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk> > > ha scritto: > > > > I do not like the idea of bridge=movable. whilst true, it is only useful to > > routers and looses the diversity of OSM, we should not dumb-down tagging > > just > > because it is not universally understood Movable in itself could mean many > > things, lifting, swing or even transporter. > > > +1, I believe the redesign of bridge tagging, whilst being an improvement > because of the introduced sub keys for some properties, still lacks some > consistency and logics for some cases, one of them being "movable" which I'd > not set as primary bridge value.
I would also think that bridge=movable is not needed given bridge:movable. But is it worth the trouble changing it? I am not against it... but enough work around:) Bridge=trestle would be a much clearer candidate to remove from the primary values table.. whoever knows how it got there. What is imho much more important is to decide that the primary bridge values should not be further extended without *very* good reasons and the existing system used as far as possible. Currently http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:bridge#Values seems suggests that anyone should freely invent his own types (bottom of table). Richard _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
