Kashish via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> writes: > Now I'm thinking of documenting two solutions on the wiki - > > 1. width:start=*/width:end=*, optionally with width=* for the minimum > width of the street, and with a word of warning about the results of > editors splitting ways.
"optionally with width=* for the minimum" is not ok. That encourages people to just use the other tags, and they will be ignored, leading to a way with no defined width. Compatibility with existing data consumers is hugely important, thousands of times more so that your expanded tagging. So if you want to proceed, please leave the existing text, and then create a proposal for new tags that says clearly "the width= that gives the min width for the way must be present". > 2. Splitting the way and using existing width=* etc tags on the > segments, and noting the benefits of this approach. That is documenting what I view as long-existing practice, so that's fine. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
