On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Andy Allan <gravityst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe in some other project, but let's stick to factual data for OSM. > The "best way" to cycle for a "dominant user group" is not factual > data. > > If you want to make a map showing such routes in order to help > cyclists, prod governments or whatever than that's a great idea, but > that's not what should go into the OSM db. > > Cheers, > Andy > If only it were as black and white as that. In practice it's a continuum of usage, maintenance and signposting, not a fact=yes / fact=no. In my experience (in a medium-sized city - London is different), the routing is 90% establishable; what varies over time is the ease of use (in particular, how easy it is to cross the main roads) and the signposting. To address this many cycle maps have an intermediate category of "recommended" routes - usually recommended by local cyclists in some way - indicating that there isn't yet sufficient signposting to find your way unaided. Currently the tags force us to resolve reality into a yes/proposed/null. Perhaps there ought to be another value: recommended, and some subtlety in the rendering responding to that. I think there's a materiality threshold for putting data into OSM (ie the data should be of use to more than a select handful), and it should be stable and not excessively open to dispute, but if joe public wants to put information in, then you need to find somewhere for them to put it, not tell them to go away. Richard
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
