On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Jacek Konieczny<jaj...@jajcus.net> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 09:12:10AM +1000, Roy Wallace wrote: >> >> I don't think there is any such thing as a "generic trail". I think >> highway=path should simply imply that the way is a physical route used >> for travel but not suitable for cars. Additional tags seem to be >> necessary to describe details, if available. > > Then why don't we use just 'highway=road' for any physical route that is > suitable for cars? With your reasoning highway=motorway, highway=trunk, > highway=residental, etc. are unnecessary, as the properties can be > described with other tags… But we have the another layer of abstraction > and I think it proved useful. We could define motorway by its surface, > width, number of lanes, vehicles which are allowed and which are not, > but this does not make things simple and would make interpretation of > the map very hard. Classifying ways into > motorways/primary/secondary/residental makes things simpler.
Yes, I agree, we need to find a balance. But regardless of whether you think motorways/trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary/residential/unclassified/track is a "simple" system, it doesn't mean it doesn't have its flaws, not does it mean that footway/cycleway/path doesn't have its flaws. The ONLY thing I demand is a clear, verifiable description of each tag on the wiki, which I would argue we are still lacking. Anything beyond that is a bonus. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
