Am Sa., 14. Sept. 2019 um 22:08 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, 14 Sep 2019 at 19:22, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> yes, or historic=road with historic:civilization=ancient_roman >> >> I’ve used both variants in the past but just had a second thought: is >> this about roads that are still with the original paving or also applicable >> to roads that were built by the romans but now have different paving (and >> maybe are wider, and maybe even left the original position for small parts)? >> > > Yes. :) > > See the proposal > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/roman_road > > This example demonstrates how to gather the missing bits into a route > using a relation: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/roman_road - I > haven't checked it > in detail, so there are probably enough things in that relation that will > upset people that > nobody will be happy with it. > I see. Up to now, I only have mapped roads (or fragments) that were clearly original (or well arranged so that the layman would believe they were original), particularly with ancient paving (but maybe not in the original configuration, I have had my doubts sometimes, because of the traces of usage which weren't well aligned). If the same tag can also mean the approximate location of a former roman road of which there is zero visible trace, then it somehow blurs the mapped existent roman roads. I believe we should use 2 different tags. As I am mapping in Rome, by your criteria, I would probably have to add historic=roman_road to almost all roads in central areas ;-) Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
