Hi, > So what do you think?
that the krauts tend to overengineer everything ;-) . I mainly use #2, sometimes combined with #3. For maps and routing they are most important. This way I describe the world as it is, not as someone tells me it should look like. #1 could additionally be added if someone wants to render special purpose maps. #4 adds confusion to the data as different people will interpret the types differently and do not describe the world as it is. BTW: I think that, unlike #1 and #4, #2 and #3 have been unnecessarily ridiculed by the given examples, regardless where they origin. No Mapper would map a suicidal trail as a cycleway (except we had no path tag ;-) . But if I see a motorway which is no better than a primary road I tag it as a primary *first*. Additional tags then could describe the administrative classification. We had this discussion on talk-de more than once, with no result so far. Frankly I do not care much as mappers automagically do the right thing. Just my two cents, ce _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
