Re: [Tagging] Proposition for a classification of path

2013-03-01 Thread Balaitous
Hola, estas un vecino, vivo en Toulouse ! Discúlpame, solo entiendo el español, no entiendo el catalan. More generally, I think there is a problem with path tagging, and we must work about new propositions before voting anything. The actual set of tags does not adequately describe paths. * A prop

Re: [Tagging] Proposition for a classification of path

2013-03-01 Thread Konfrare Albert
Hi! First say that I appreciate your proposal for improve the tagging of paths, is one of my interests too. I immediately understood what are you saying with «cul de sac» (I'm catalan!), and I take this opportunity to say that "cul de sac" path of Gavernie is fantastic and highly recommended path

Re: [Tagging] Proposition for a classification of path

2013-02-28 Thread Peter Wendorff
Am 28.02.2013 00:05, schrieb Balaitous: Hi, You insinuate that I want to remove the other tags characterizing paths. This is false. What I propose is a new tag providing a summarized information, such that no algorithm can do. Besides, I think we should also tag of the markup, like markup=yes/n

Re: [Tagging] Proposition for a classification of path

2013-02-27 Thread Balaitous
Le mardi 26 février 2013 à 15:19 -0500, Richard Welty a écrit : > i think it has the potential to be confusing, in part because tracktype > already exists > for highway=track, and tracktype is entirely about actual physical > characteristics. > > i suspect it is a mistake to try to aggregate log

Re: [Tagging] Proposition for a classification of path

2013-02-27 Thread Balaitous
Hi, You insinuate that I want to remove the other tags characterizing paths. This is false. What I propose is a new tag providing a summarized information, such that no algorithm can do. Besides, I think we should also tag of the markup, like markup=yes/no markup:quality= scale from 1 to 5 markup

Re: [Tagging] Proposition for a classification of path

2013-02-26 Thread John F. Eldredge
Richard Welty wrote: > i think it has the potential to be confusing, in part because > tracktype > already exists > for highway=track, and tracktype is entirely about actual physical > characteristics. > > i suspect it is a mistake to try to aggregate logical information > about > a path's >

Re: [Tagging] Proposition for a classification of path

2013-02-26 Thread Richard Welty
i think it has the potential to be confusing, in part because tracktype already exists for highway=track, and tracktype is entirely about actual physical characteristics. i suspect it is a mistake to try to aggregate logical information about a path's significance (or the significance of its e

Re: [Tagging] Proposition for a classification of path

2013-02-26 Thread Balaitous
> i think i'll summarize thusly: the proposal tries to combine distinctly > different concepts into one tag, and the result is a simple taxonomy > that sort of looks ok but doesn't handle a bunch of real world cases > very well. It's a good summary of my proposition. But where you think combine d

Re: [Tagging] Proposition for a classification of path

2013-02-26 Thread Balaitous
Le lundi 25 février 2013 à 18:27 -0500, Richard Welty a écrit : > On 2/25/13 5:17 PM, Balaitous wrote: > > Hi, > > I have wrote a proposition of classification for path. > > You can see it at : > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pathtype > > > given the descriptions on the pr

Re: [Tagging] Proposition for a classification of path

2013-02-26 Thread Balaitous
> Also, the proposed path types would classify any path that ends in a > cul-de-sac as the least-used and least-maintained category, which isn't > necessarily the case. When I say "cul-de-sac" I refer to paths that go nowhere, like this : http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/166766130 http:/

Re: [Tagging] Proposition for a classification of path

2013-02-25 Thread Richard Welty
On 2/25/13 6:52 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote: Also, the proposed path types would classify any path that ends in a cul-de-sac as the least-used and least-maintained category, which isn't necessarily the case. i think i'll summarize thusly: the proposal tries to combine distinctly different con

Re: [Tagging] Proposition for a classification of path

2013-02-25 Thread John F. Eldredge
Richard Welty wrote: > On 2/25/13 5:17 PM, Balaitous wrote: > > Hi, > > I have wrote a proposition of classification for path. > > You can see it at : > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pathtype > > > given the descriptions on the proposal page, how would you categorize > t

Re: [Tagging] Proposition for a classification of path

2013-02-25 Thread Richard Welty
On 2/25/13 5:17 PM, Balaitous wrote: Hi, I have wrote a proposition of classification for path. You can see it at : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pathtype given the descriptions on the proposal page, how would you categorize this path: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=

[Tagging] Proposition for a classification of path

2013-02-25 Thread Balaitous
Hi, I have wrote a proposition of classification for path. You can see it at : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/pathtype Balaitous ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging