2009/8/10 Tom Chance <t...@acrewoods.net>: > This is all very nice, but doesn't solve the problem - actually it > illustrates it.
If you think having path and keep footway/cycleway/bridleway is a problem: no, this "problem" can hardly ever be solved within OSM. But it solves the problem of tagging these "minor ways" clearly. > You've just explained that there are two different ways of tagging the same > thing, and suggested that both are equally valid. That's pointless and > confusing. What would you like to do? Force Mappers to use path? Automated mass-retagging of existing footways/cycleways/bridleways? Or just keep the "old" system because "there must not be another way to do it, even if its more flexible"? > But we don't start using highway=path > as a catch-all for footways, cycleways, bridleways and others just because > we can capture the same meaning using access, surface, width and other > tags. Why not? we can express the same, more flexible. And you know as well as I do that this not about width and surface, so don't try to make the "path" system look more complicated than it really is. > Which do we go for? We can't have this stupid, unclear fudge. We can. We had this multiple times before. Think of address tagging before the Karlsruhe Workshop breaktrough or different public transport tagging(?). This "problem" will get solved automatically by time if people don't try to re-define long documented tags because they don't see thier use... -Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
