I think as long as "conflates a bunch" is made "explicit" it can be a helpful tag. This is why I said "generally," as a "rich" tagging as this (which mixes semantics and says "choose a full meal from the menu, not a la carte") can be an exception. Again, it must be understood that it is a "rating," rather than explicit values that mean specific things unto themselves.
> On Jan 30, 2022, at 9:15 PM, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 at 15:27, stevea <stevea...@softworkers.com> wrote: > But to conflate two wholly different semantics into one key, mmm, not > generally a good idea. > > But that's exactly what the AWTGS does, it conflates a bunch of independent > variables together, it generally works where the harder trails are longer and > steeper and more remote, but breaks down for long walks which are flat, > easily accessible, easy to navigate and not remote. However, it's in use as > an official grading system, so it's fine to map it at least in the case where > it's officially assigned. Data consumers can decide if they want to use it or > use more attributes for each specific trail difficulty variable. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
