I am not local, but just my two cents: I agree with Andrew that such
specific state-wide rules (or exceptions to the rules) should be tagged
as a single regional default, and highway features should have generic
tags (unless there are relevant signage and routes, obviously),
especially since those rules might change in the future.
The data consumers not using the data how it should be used shouldn't
force us to create a big maintenance overhead.
Cheers
On 8/4/22 19:05, Andy Townsend wrote:
On 08/04/2022 06:31, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 14:53, Graeme Fitzpatrick
<graemefi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 12:50, Andrew Harvey
<andrew.harv...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think this is getting too much into mapping regulations, we
could just have no bicycle tag and leave it to data consumers
to apply the regional defaults.
What would that do to bike routing?
Well your router would need to look up the specific default whether
that's something in the routing engine configuration, pulled from the
OSM wiki, or pulled from the Victoria state relation def:* tags.
Which, practically speaking, will never happen.
In OSM terms, that's very much "on display in the bottom of a locked
filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door
saying 'Beware of The Leopard'"**
Best Regards,
Andy
** Douglas Adams, of course.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
