I think the custom is to attach comments to the wiki on the discussion page. It would also be helpful if the comments focused on the aspect of the proposal that you don't like (eg the use of the designation tag for US road classifications), since the objective of this stage is to refine the proposal. Voting comes later. And of course you are entitled to propose something else instead.
Richard On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: > Richard Mann wrote: > > This is a request for comments on the proposal for a new > > Key:designation. Hopefully it's had it's rough edges removed already, > > but I would appreciate your comments. > > > > Richard > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation > > I'm opposed; this seems like a duplication of effort for what route > relations are currently for, and creates redundancy and overlap in scope > with the service= and highway= tags. As such, this really sounds like a > step in the wrong direction. Perhaps expanding the service= tags and > getting the mapnik and osmarender we use on the slippymap to render > these things instead of route tags on the underlying ways when the > underlying way is a member of a route=road relation. > > The cyclemap is getting this right; but strangely, none of the other > renderers. And it's not like it would be that hard to get that fixed; > someone's already rendering road relations complete with correct highway > badges already. > > http://weait.com/maps/?zoom=11&lat=43.14469&lon=-79.17383&layers=0B0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
