Paul, Thanks for the reminder about the US Tagging page, I forgot to add it to my watchlist in the wiki and it's definitely grown since my last read-through.
Regarding the whole road vs. track vs. path debate, I think the only way of resolving the whole track/tracktype ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype) issue is to allow each country's mappers to decide how to deal with that particular tag. Since we're revisiting the issue at the moment, I'd like to propose re-opening the track and tracktype pages for RFC and create a US usage standard for both keys. Does anyone else feel like seconding this? Thanks, Chris On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Paul Fox <p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us> wrote: > dale wrote: > > I have been reading thru these posts and havn't seen a consensus/summary > > yet. In my view it should be reasonably straight forward based on the > tags > > we have. The point is to describe what is actually there. > > > > highway= is for the type of road regardless of condition. A paved > surface > > is assumed unless otherwise stated. > > If it does not have a name (and thus no addresses), it should be a > track. > > This would typically be a 1 lane (total) or possible wide enough for 2. > > This probably assumes an unpaved surface by default. > > > > See also Tracktype= for further track classification. > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:tracktype > > > > Surface= is for describing the condition of the road when it does not > match > > the assumed default. Unpaved works but isn't that descriptive. Gravel, > > dirt ect. would be a better choice. > > > > Access= if it needs to be tagged private or other than full public > access. > > > > thank you for this summary. > > i think you'd be doing future versions of this thread a service > by somehow integrating this into the text at: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging#Other_Roads > which is similar, but slightly different, and certainly not as complete. > > (i'd do it, but i've already proved myself as unqualified to deal with > the true subtleties of tagging...) > > paul > > > If there are further situations that need to be tagged, we probably want > to > > either apply more tags to clarify the conditions, or better yet create a > new > > subset of tags for specific use. I'm thinking of someone wanting to > start > > tagging offroad trails for bikes, or 4wheel drive ect. I would think > > because of the narrowed focus of something like that it should be well > > separate from what most cars can drive. Sort of an oxymoron off-road > > roads.... :) > > > > And as usual if other applications do not use the tags right, we need to > > e-mail the authors and ask for a change to fit the tags. I'm sure they > > prefer that to digging in the wiki to see if someone started using > something > > new/different. > > > > -- > > Dale Puch > > part 2 text/plain 143 > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-us mailing list > > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > > =--------------------- > paul fox, p...@foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 67.3 > degrees) > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us