I just tried to apply the 'architects' convention' of steps 'always' being from bottom to top. Then for unrelated reasons I reversed the way. Unlike 'oneway' this does not reverse the direction of the steps - i.e. the software doesn't know about the architects' convention. So I have to conclude that - at present at least - the assumption of an implicit sense is risky.
Mike Harris > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] > Sent: 25 August 2009 12:08 > To: Roy Wallace > Cc: talk > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - > incline up down > > 2009/8/23 Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com>: > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Morten > Kjeldgaard<m...@bioxray.au.dk> wrote: > >> > >>> "hard-to-verify data" - I don't see why incline=* is any > harder to > >>> verify than ele=* - as you said yourself, if you have one you can > >>> calculate/verify the other... > > I think that incline up/down is much easier to verify and > much more unambigous (e.g. which elevation-model is used to > express the elevation?), but also far less usefull. > > Everybody can see on the ground if a street goes up or down. > > > What? The key question is if a tag is verifiable. Incline=* > is just as > > verifiable as ele=*. It's just in a different form. The "good > > argument" for adding incline=* is that it is 1) easy to read off a > > sign (say, source:incline=sign), > > I think you're confusing 2 things here: the sign AFAIK > doesn't tell the inclination but the maximum inclination that > occurs on a certain road. > > 2) provides valuable information in > > the meantime, while we wait for you to develop and import > your ele=* > > solution. > > the ele-solution is already established. Please see the wiki. > > cheers, > Martin > > > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
