Two points. (1) Do not redefine width as medium width.
(2) Do not propose tagging of ways that does not survive splitting the way On Tue, 15 Aug 2023, 18:11 Sebastian Gürtler, <sebastian.guert...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Am 15.08.23 um 14:56 schrieb Greg Troxel: > > >> If there are no objections, I'lpl add a section about the above to the > wiki. > > I strongly object, because a data router that uses just width will > > conclude that the way is usable when it is not. It is a basic > > principle of tagging that data consumers that read the basic tags rather > > than the more complicated tags that are less used should not be misled. > Agree completely. > > If you want to keep "width=" as the minimum width over the way, and then > > add the other things, then I don't see that as really helpful in the > > grand scheme, but I don't see it as harmful. I expect very few > > circumstances where it is appropriate, almost no one to tag them, and > > almost no routers to implement it. > > I would add: I expect many situations where data will be destroyed > afterwards: If ways are split for whatever reason, this would result in > two ways with identical start and end values describing another > situation. (e.g if you have start=2m end=3m you will get the same > section as 2m-3m/2m-3m). You couldn't split a way without measuring the > width at the splitting point - as a mapper you would have to delete the > width:start/end tags if you split a way without knowing the width on > this point, but no one would dare or be aware of it. > > => "... I expect many [or at the moment: all] editors that would destroy > the data." > > Sebastian > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
