On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 3:59 PM, John Henderson <snow...@gmx.com> wrote: > I think it is useful. We're used to it with road networks, with > national routes and state routes. Sure, hiking trails are shorter, but > that doesn't mean it's unworkable.
Just so we're on the same page, I understand you as proposing that we use NWN for the AAWT and the BNT, and nothing else. Zero IWT, two NWN, lots of RWN and LWN. I think we can do better. >> I originally put the Overland track as a RWN, then switched to NWN. >> One consequence of this it is shows up at lower zoom levels on >> lonvia's hiking map. Since there are so few long distance hiking >> trails in Australia (compared to, say, central europe), we should >> (IMHO) be fairly liberal with the higher designations, as there is no >> danger of overcrowding the map. > > I'm not going to say anything about tagging for the r... (oops, nearly did). I won't say anything about how it's valid to use current renderer practice to inform the use of tags in the absence of anything more authoritative, until now. >But is it a wilderness area, where route markers are prohibited? Dunno. I suspect it's fairly well trafficked anyway. >They'd obviously gravitate towards the route showing on the GPS in their hand. This is pretty much OT, but from the few people I've talked to, following a GPS while on this kind of trek is not yet standard practice. And I really think we can cross the bridge of harm caused by OSM data when we get to it... (By which I mean, sure, interesting topic for discussion, I just don't want to debate it here.) Steve _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
