> On Jun 15, 2016, at 2:48 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> physical attributes
> of ways
Then why do we have 7 different tags for roads, and then add attributes such as
width, surface and so on? Why don't we differentiate all roads in your "we
already have enough" way?
Highway=road
Width=20m
La
John Willis wrote:
> How is a data provider supposed to make assumptions of what a particular
> path is when there is no place to start from?
I presume you mean "data consumer", and as the data consumer who probably
parses path tags in more detail than any other (for cycle.travel), I do
fine, tha
Yea, I meant data consumer.
> On Jun 15, 2016, at 5:47 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> - highway=path, which should die in a fire
Well, we are in agreement there.
And since you are a domain expert, how does one go about separating mountain
trails from footpaths in a park if their surfac
John Willis wrote:
> how does one go about separating mountain trails from footpaths in a park
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale is popular for doing that.
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Subject-Feature-Proposal-RFC-highway-social-path-
2016-06-15 11:58 GMT+02:00 John Willis :
> And since you are a domain expert, how does one go about separating
> mountain trails from footpaths in a park if their surface and width is the
> same? What "condition" tag do you use to separate them?
well, you can see from the data that a path / foo
> On Jun 15, 2016, at 7:04 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> John Willis wrote:
>> how does one go about separating mountain trails from footpaths in a park
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:sac_scale is popular for doing that.
>
> Richard
> On Jun 15, 2016, at 7:07 PM, Martin Kopp
John Willis wrote:
> I am really having trouble understanding the reasoning behind the
> resistance when it removes uncertainty and confusion while tagging.
But it doesn't.
You're citing your own personal hierarchy between "trails" and "easily
traversed footways", which is fine. But that hierar
On 15 June 2016 at 13:10, John Willis wrote:
> Why isn't having a footway=trail subtag (or something) seen as a much more
> reliable solution?
Perhaps more of an aside, but it may explain some people's reluctance
/ confusion with highway=trail:
As a native British English speaker, the word I wou
On 15/06/2016 13:10, John Willis wrote:
So SAC scale and being outside a park polygon/relation is good enough
to allow a data consumer and the folks over in -carto to render a
"footway" and a "trail" differently and reliably enough? What happens
when I have a strong mix of =pedestrian, =footway
> On Jun 15, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
> wrote:
>
> if two paths have identical surface and width
> characteristics
The issue I have is that they do not have similar characteristics, yet get
rendered the same. It's like if all tracks were rendered as residential roads.
On 15/06/2016 15:03, John Willis wrote:
On Jun 15, 2016, at 9:56 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
wrote:
if two paths have identical surface and width
characteristics
The issue I have is that they do not have similar characteristics, yet get
rendered the same.
So tag the different charac
> On Jun 15, 2016, at 11:11 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> So tag the different characteristics (surface, width, etc.), and let
> renderers decide whether to render the difference or not?
>
> I have to say I'm really struggling to see the problem here.
Hmm..
Why is a tertiary rendered diffe
12 matches
Mail list logo
