On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Roy Wallace <waldo000...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Even if it is more useful, "places where bikes can go" is not > well-defined. This is the whole point of this thread. If you can come > up with a more specific definition (e.g. based on law, or physical > characteristics, or whatever it is that you mean), and a set of > verifiable tags that are able to express this, then you'd have my > support. > Honestly, I find your position of "surface and width is what you map, everything else is subjective" a little extreme. Consider the tags "highway=service", "highway=unclassified" and "highway=track". They cover a wide range of surfaces and widths. What unites them is that four wheeled vehicles can do use them. I don't see why the standards for bicycle access should be higher. If bicycles can and do use certain paths, then let's map it so. Obviously, recording surface and width *in addition* would be nice, but it's not essential. Do you really think you can define every existing tag to this high standard of objectivity? I don't. So, I'm quite comfortable mapping out bike paths and pedestrian footpaths, knowing that I will get some of those in the grey area wrong, and that someone down the line can quibble over it and fix it. I'd rather get 90% right with a small amount of effort, than 100% right with a large amount of effort. Or worse, map 50% that are "objective", and leave the other 50% unmapped because I didn't have all the information required to be certain. I understand that you want beautiful, objective, highly detailed data everywhere. We all do. My thinking is "low quality data everywhere first, then medium everywhere, then high everywhere". Yours might be "high quality data in small areas first, then in bigger areas". Steve
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
