Had it been discussed beforehand so that other consumers would be aware of the meaning of the new tag, I wouldn't personally have a problem with it. access=no is also a decent suggestion (and would not require discussion with the community beforehand), but there is likely a quantitative difference between these informal trails and the official ones, so it makes sense to have a different tag value.
-Nathan On March 24, 2016 2:05:22 PM EDT, Mike Thompson <miketh...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:50 AM, James Umbanhowar <jumba...@gmail.com> >wrote: > >> Regardless of the community's eventual solution, I think the most >> important part of this event was the lack of engagement of Caliparks >> and Stamen with the community. Is there a similar process for >> institutional (business, government, non-profit) editing of data as >> there is for imports? There should be. I think institutional >> engagement with OSM can bring many benefits, but has similar dangers >as >> imports. > >Regardless of who is editing (individual or institution), removing well >accepted tags (highway=path) and substituting newly created tags >(highway=social_path) shouldn't take place without community >discussion. > >Mike > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Talk-us mailing list >Talk-us@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
