On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Roy Wallace <[email protected]> wrote: >> I disagree - from the wiki: highway=path is "a route open to the >> public which is not intended for motor vehicles with four or more >> wheels". I think highway=path is perfect. It's plain English. > > Yeah, the /examples subpage is great, too. Serious question: does > anyone use the tag this way?
Yes. Anyone who tags according to the wiki tags according to the wiki. > My concern is that renderers generally > just look at the key (path) and render it as though it was a dirt path > (dotted brown line). Whereas you're essentially saying they should > look at all the tags together, and possibly render as a footway, a > cycleway, etc. And that might be asking too much. I doubt it. If I understand correctly it's fairly easy to add boolean relations to a style sheet... >> Hmm. I see your point, but I don't like your definition. If anything, >> bicycle=yes/no should keep its current definition, i.e., equivalent to >> bicycle:legal=yes/no (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access). > > That's not how it's used, and you know it. :) No, I don't "know it". It's impossible to know without asking 200000 mappers. Surely - without doing that - it's more reliable to look at the wiki than to ask a handful of people on a mailing list? >> If you want to invent a tag that refers to "the mapper's opinion" (!), >> then I would recommend using bicycle:Steve's_opinion=yes. :P > > Go jump. No offense! (did you see the smily face?) Seriously, though, I was making a point. "the mapper's opinion" is not verifiable. It has *no meaning* unless you know who the mapper was. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
