Steve Bennett wrote: > 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.
Yes, until we develop other national trails. > I think we can do better. I don't. When the Bicentennial National Trail got named, the meaning of "national" was clearly understood. It should have the same meaning in the expression "national walking network". I see no compelling reason for it not to. I see two arguments raised for relaxing the meaning of "national": . The number of NWNs and RWNs is out of balance, with there being many more RWNs than NWNs. . NWNs render at a lower zoom level than RWNs. I reckon these arguments are trivial and inconsequential compared with confusion created by using the term "national" in some watered-down way. > 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. That's as comprehensible as something I'd write on a bad day :) > 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.) When it does get debated, bear in mind that the incentive to use a GPS unit for bush navigation is going to be greater in an area where track markers are not permitted. John H _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au