On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Alex Mauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jon Burgess wrote: > >> The only thing I see an issue with is introducing the specific >> 'highway=path' tag. I see this as an unnecessary complication. > > I guess it's a matter of perspective. I see it as a simplification: > instead of having three categories for one physical feature (and still > needing to twist reality in order to fit them in > (highway=footway+foot=no+ski=yes, anyone?) you have only one category. > >>>From a quick glance at the examples given I think they are all covered >> with combinations of highway=cycleway|footway|track with the other tags > > Except the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, ninth, and tenth. > Yeah. > >> you propose like foot=y/n, motorcar=y/n or tracktype=gradeN etc. > > I propose none of those tags. the first two are part of the initial > revision of access=*, and the last I do not propose nor agree with. > >> I >> really don't see what highway=path adds. > > To quote the wiki page: "A generic path. Either not intended for any > particular use, or intended for several different uses." For the nth > time, bridleway/cycleway/footway do not cover these.
Gotcha. Excepth that, assuming you /can/ walk on it, that's what the rest of us have been using highway=footway for since the dawn of time (well, dawn of map features maybe. well, last couple of years at least). If it happened to have another purpose (ie: bikes or horses) then it got upgraded to cycleway or bridleway. If that's not what you thought highway=footway meant then I guess the docs for highway=footway need updating (again). > You can look at > the list of path examples referred to above to see ones which are not > covered. The only one of them which might be is the fifth, and that one > is simply not /adequately/ covered. So that means 2 to 9 are fully covered by the existing map features (ie: footway/cycleway/bridleway/track/service) > >> The one exception is for >> snowmobile, for that I'd suggest possibly adding highway=snowmobile >> instead. > > And three kinds of ski and motorcycle. And I'm sure there's some modes > of transport that we're missing. Adding them all as highway values is > nonsensical. (highway=elephantway?) > Nonsensical is a matter of opinion clearly. You can't just say things are nonsensical and hope that means something. It happens to make perfect sense. You might not like it, and there might be a better way, but that's not really the same thing. Dave _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
