-1, because:
Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote on 2014-09-20 23:42:
I would like to suggest making the paved key for highways (and probably other
types of elements) official.
Taginfo for paved:
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/paved#values
The above shows that the key is already being used,
1648 times, compared to 9383813 of 'surface'.
but the Wiki doesn't describe this key, instead redirecting Key:paved
to the article about Key:surface.
to discourage the use of a duplicate key
However, in some cases, a simple information on just whether a highway is paved
or not, would be very useful.
One such case would be navigation software – if a user chooses to avoid unpaved
roads,
Navigation software is pretty able to consider a short list of specific pavings
as 'paved' and another short list as 'unpaved', they are already structured in
the
wiki.
OsmAnd, as a popular navigation software, does so, and in the pre-1.9 nightlies
you
can switch on colour coding for different surfaces.
the software can check the value of the surface key, but in practice most (all?)
of the navigation software only checks for a subset of all the possible values
the surface key can have.
Could you please support your argument with examples of such software, and
why such incompleteness cannot be fixed within the router/renderer?
If the paved key was widely used, then the navigation software would have a
simple
and clear way of checking whether a given road is paved or not.
Not much simpler than checking for a member of a list.
The default value
of the paved key for highways could be yes, so that it would be consistent with
the
assumption that highways in general are paved.
This does not work as a general assumption.
I would assume a motorway as paved, but a track or path as unpaved, unless
shown otherwise.
Also, the surface=paved could also implicate paved=yes
and similarly surface=unpaved could implicate paved=no, so that duplication of
the
information could be avoided when the generic paved and unpaved values are set
for the surface key.
You are just arguing against your proposal. As we have surface=paved
we don't need paved=yes. And surface=asphalt implies paved.
Tod Fitch wrote on 2014-09-21 01:15:
> It might be considered duplicative, but what should a data consumer do if
confronted
> with a surface=* value that is unknown to it (and the wiki)? We aren't
talking human
> intelligence here where an informed guess is possible. Should such a way be
considered
> paved or unpaved for purposes of routing? From that point of view, Richard's
proposal gives a lot of clarity.
You would not want to add 9383813 unnecessary paved=yes/no just to cover
a few dozen undocumented values for surface, most of them probably typos.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
