Tend to agree in part - I think the 'official' bit is actually redundant? Would this improve the page?
Mike Harris -----Original Message----- From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] Sent: 14 August 2009 12:54 To: Mike Harris Cc: Jukka Rahkonen; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Non-designated cycleway vs. designation info missing 2009/8/14 Mike Harris <mik...@googlemail.com>: > The problem is that some of us follow the wiki advice re designated= > which was developed after a lot of discussion in this group! > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated > > If it ain't > broke don't fix it? IMHO it IS BROKEN. The cited page has contradictions on it. E.g. it defines "To indicate an exclusive access use access=official" and then suggests to tag bicycle=official AND foot=official to the same way (combined). This is not what I understand from "exclusive". Another example: a cycleway (dedicated) could according to this page be tagged: bicycle=designated and foot=yes/no depending on country and horse=no why is horse not depending on country? why does "official" not need specification depending on country (according to the page)? There is more like this on the page, and there is other pages that probably suggest different tagging, so there is a problem that IMHO should be solved by unifying and a general proposal, whether we should tag legal implications explicitly or handle them country specifically (and probably document the implications countrywise in the wiki). cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
