On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:26 PM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > > Legal status often *is* verifiable. It's not always "mapping what's on the > ground", but I think we've got a ways to go before we can get away with only > mapping "what's on the ground". I agree it's a good ideal, but to follow it > strictly, the routers would need a separate database to hold a list of > jurisdiction-specific defaults.
I agree. There doesn't seem to be an easy solution. I do think, though, that mappers are tempted to use tags relating to the *law* (e.g. bicycle=yes/no) in the absence of an alternative, for something they really want to express - that is, "suitability", "common practice", etc. This is dangerous territory for two reasons: 1) if mappers misuse "yes/no", we'll get in a situation where "yes/no" could mean any number of things, and hence mean nothing 2) mappers might start using/inventing non-verifiable tags to say what they want to say about a path, i.e. beyond surface/width Is there a set of verifiable tags that we can use to express the nature of paths (beyond surface/width), in the absence of a law book? I don't think there is, but I'm all ears. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
