On 09.10.2015 08:30, Marc Gemis wrote: > You didn't read my complete mail then. I wrote that it would be better to > use something like access:destination:traffic_sign=... > because I realised that traffic_sign on a road would be a bad idea.
With access:destination:traffic_sign=* you get the same mess. How are applications supposed to handle values like access:destination:traffic_sign=bridleway? What would be the correct value anyway? There are an infinite number of traffic signs that can mean abutters-or-contact-with-abutters, and the meaning of some of the signs depends on the country. > Did you read Lauri Kytömaa's long mail ? No, because I just noticed it. (The thread has gotten too big, with all but the first reply being off-topic.) I will read it and reply to it. > If you introduce a new value for access that will only be used in 1 or 2 > countries[1], it's unlikely that it will be adapted soon in global routers > and renderers. I don't care how many countries are affected. It's a distinctive meaning, so it deserves a distinctive tag. I get really angry whenever people write "I oppose that tag because I don't need it in my country." With that mindset, we wouldn't have tags like natural=glacier or historic:civilization=nuragic, as they only exist in a certain countries. > Since it is almost the same as destination, the benefit of > destination + extra key-values is that it will work for most uses. The meaning is not even close to destination. At least it's not closer than "delivery" or "customers" relate to "destination". So why didn't you argue against access=delivery and access=customers? I am fine with a subtag like destination=delivery/customers/local_traffic/contact_abutters, but then we need to deprecate access=delivery and access=customers. > A new value, unknown to the router/renderer, can be interpreted by default > as yes, no, etc, which doesn't have to be the best fit. That's ok, because "yes" or "no" match the meaning just as much as "destination" does. > And as long as the router doesn't ask the user the reason for the visit, it > should substitute a value for your new value (no, yes, private, > destination,... ?). Isn't destination then the best fit. So why not use it > in tagging then ? For most uses, "delivery" is the best fit. That's the value I have been using so far. It works out right for delivery agents and outdoor activities. That's the two use cases where correct navigation matters most. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
