On 30/05/18 18:10, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 5:34 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 30/05/18 16:03, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
I would say both of these should be mapped as bridges.
Problem: Personal discussion being shown on public list..
If you want more than the two of you to contribute then hold the
discussion here. :)
I quoted the whole off-list "discussion" with Thorsten. Since it was
short and not controversial, I assumed it was in error not using reply
all. Apologies if this is against some sort of mailing list etiquette,
but in my use of mailing lists it is common people forget to reply all.
Depends on the other person .. some see it as 'private'. Others have
just made an error.
Personally I try to keep the replay to the list only ... no point in
have a separate To: or Cc: thing in the address bar ... and it keeps my
mail filters happy :)
I'd like to, but the problem it causes is that trails in national
parks and bushland are usually named, and MTB trails have other
tags including difficulty ratings. By splitting these trails to
add tiny bridges it makes it harder to maintain consistent tags
on separate highways, I know of a few trails with half a dozen
tiny bridges.
Do you see this as a problem? Or do you think I'm just making a
storm in a teacup?
Routes can be had in a relation containing many things including
bridges.
The difficulty rating could be placed on separate sections - the
individual ways, or placed in the relation as the same for all the
route ... depends on how much detail you want to get.
IMBA difficulty ratings (and those for hiking and horse riding)
generally apply to the whole trail even if one section is easier,
because you can't just leave the trail if it gets hard and usually
trail builders will have decided the classification before starting
work. However, trails can sometimes fork (for a decent length) and
rejoin, so that does already give you multiple ways.
If the trail has the same name along all its length .. there is no
problem in splitting it up and having the same name on the
separate ways .. just like there in for highways now.
It is a 'challenge' to maintain some of it .. but it is the truth
and so that should be what is in OSM.
Great, I wanted to make sure people didn't see bush paths/trails as
less important than roads for cars. I guess the only way to avoid
fords being mapped incorrectly is to map bridges where they actually
exist no matter their size.
It is less complex the way you have it :) ... but less 'truthful'. :(
The broken up roads are a pain when you try to change there
classifications .. you have to do it for each bridge and way ... at
least that is the present arrangement .. possibly if they were relations
it would be easier for the name, classification ...
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
