Jun 10, 2020, 19:40 by t...@fitchfamily.org: > > > >> On Jun 10, 2020, at 12:31 AM, Volker Schmidt <>> vosc...@gmail.com>> > wrote: >> >> Two points to get this thread back on track: >> >> 1) The highway=track tag has always been wider than agriculture and >> forestry. There is an often overlooked "etc." in the description on the >> wiki, and it has been there from the very first version of 26 May 2008. (see >> also >> Duck_tagging <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Duck_tagging>>> ) >> >> 2) "In my rendering of hiking maps I currently have to look at 13 tags and >> their values to make a decision ..." >> "I think we need some more values for the highway tag..." >> These two statements together (made in the same message in this thread) >> highlight the basic problem of this and other discussions: >> If we need to look at X tags and values now, adding new values only makes >> the list longer - there's no way around this. >> > My hope would be that addition of more highway=* values that better match > what people are trying to map would be a short term pain (data consumers need > to add one more check) but long term benefit. > > For example, as mappers discover they can map a voie verte in France or a > “Rails to Trails” in the USA as highway=greenway and not as arbitrary choice > of track, path, cycleway or bridle path differentiated by a bunch of > foot=designated, bicycle=designated, etc. tags they are likely to migrate to > the simpler tagging. At some time in the future data consumers could begin to > be more restrictive on their logic. > While not categorically opposed - it would need a solid proposal. highway=via_ferrata seems one that is most viable and highway=greenway seems to not be a real improvement and its meaning is utterly unclear for me
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
