Toll? I assume that means the same in US English as in UK English? You really have to pay to use cycleways? How is the toll collected and enforced?
Phil (trigpoint ) On Sun Sep 21 2014 23:36:04 GMT+0100 (BST), Paul Johnson wrote: > Along with this, I really hope renderers start computing surface=* and > toll=* values for ALL ways. I say this since "surface=asphalt, > highway=cyclway" is an exceptionally rare combination in the midwestern US, > but "highway=cycleway, surface=gravel, toll=yes" is not. > > On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 2:29 AM, Pee Wee <piewi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > -1 > > > > A renderer/router is perfectly capable of deciding what he thinks is > > paved/unpaved. He can decide whether he calls gravel / fine_gravel paved or > > unpaved. Do not leave the decision paved/unpaved up to the mapper. Map > > what you see. As you may have guessed I prefer surface=asphalt over > > surface=paved since the last one could mean that it is gravel. > > > > Cheers > > PeeWee32 > > > > 2014-09-21 2:49 GMT+02:00 David Bannon <dban...@internode.on.net>: > > > >> > >> yes, agree strongly. Surface= is a good tag, provides important info but > >> it is far too fine grained. Someone setting up a route cannot be > >> expected to sift through all the possible values. > >> > >> Similarly, we may well have a chance to get the renderers to respect a > >> clear, on/off tag like the proposed and show it on the maps too. > >> > >> I see no problem with both tags being used. > >> > >> I think sometimes we put too much detail in the database and risk making > >> the data unusable because of that. Mention making the data usable, we > >> see charges of "tagging for the renderer". But this is important, I have > >> detailed life threatening issues resulting from unclear maps. This > >> proposal will provide valuable, dare I say "usable" info for consumers ! > >> > >> David > >> > >> On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 23:42 +0200, Tomasz Kaźmierczak wrote: > >> > Hello all, > >> > > >> > I've posted the below message on the forum, and have been directed > >> > from there to this mailing list, thus re-posting it. > >> > > >> > Idea > >> > > >> > 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, but the Wiki > >> > doesn't describe this key, instead redirecting Key:paved to the > >> > article about Key:surface. > >> > > >> > Rationale > >> > > >> > Currently, the surface key is being used as a way of saying that a > >> > given highway is paved or unpaved, but often the value for the surface > >> > key is not a generic paved or unpaved, but a specific surface type is > >> > given.This is of course very useful for describing the particular > >> > surface type a given highway has. 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, 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. This leads to incorrect (in terms of what the user expects) > >> > navigation when, for example, the surface is set to some value that > >> > describes an unpaved road, not recognized by the navigation software – > >> > if the software assumes that all highways are paved, unless explicitly > >> > stated otherwise (by recognized values of known keys), then, in > >> > consequence, it assumes that the road in question is paved. > >> > > >> > 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. 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. > >> > > >> > I don't mean that we should stop using the paved and unpaved values > >> > for the surface key – I'm sure those generic values are useful in some > >> > cases. However, using the paved key would be also very useful. 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. > >> > > >> > I believe that adding an article for the paved key to the Wiki would > >> > encourage people to use this tag, and navigation software makers to > >> > implement support for it in their applications. > >> > > >> > What do you think about that? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > > >> > Tomek > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Tagging mailing list > >> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Tagging mailing list > >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap > > <http://www.openstreetmap.org>. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > > -- Sent from my Jolla _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
