M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Apollinaris Schoell wrote: >> >> please no new highway, path/footway is already a very controversial tag. >> > (...) > I don't say stuff can't be expressed currently, but it would > make the life of mappers, renderers, routers much easier if there was > a way to put out the difference. >
I do think there is an "in between". Take for instance : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/via_ferrata Some people advocate this should be a tagged as highway=path+via_ferrata_scale=something, I don't. Doing so will effectively makes it necessary for any data consumers out there to support that new via_ferrata_scale tag, because, unless doing so, drawing or using both equivalently will produce really far from reality and dangerous result. That's, I think, the limit of "highway=path to rule them all" as you mentionned later with the motorway example that we don't want to tag as path with tons of additionnal tags for ease of mapping reasons, and because data consumers (renderer, route planner) would have to constantly update there applications to support the new and duplicate way to use motorways But the informal path this thread is about, unless I haven't been able to understand what it really is, could be safely and usability considered a "degraded path", still a path in it's main function (travelling by foot) but with particularities that wouldn't reasonably change it's usage in consumer applications unless some special usage case need, which could then read the additionnal tags M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > Apollinaris Schoell wrote: >> >> why not add additional tags to path. path is very generic and we have a >> documented visibility tag >> > > because it is not working now: we are trying this for years and there > is no renderer or other data consumer (AFAIK) that makes a difference. > > Again, unless I have missunderstood informals ways you are talking about, I think we are talking about : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility here ? Beside the fact it indicates "This is part of a classification scheme for hiking trails." (which could be extended to "any trails or path") ( or we could use a more generic path_visilibilty or a basic informal=yes in addition if that's really incompatible) and then your informal ways could use value intermediate or bad. The fact that it is not supported by "common" renderers is not that problematic because it will still appears and be used as a path which is not that wrong. And special renderers which need it could still display it as they feel like it. (Just like my own renderer : http://www.refuges.info/nav.php?lat=45.425&lon=5.93&zoom=16&choix_layer=OSM red is good visibility of the trail pink is bad visibility of the trail ) -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/new-highway-tag-for-small-and-informal-footpaths-trail-tp5663108p5675792.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
