On 29/03/19 20:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Fr., 29. März 2019 um 08:28 Uhr schrieb Warin
<61sundow...@gmail.com <mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>>:
On 29/03/19 17:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
can you explain how it relates to this proposal?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Area
That proposal is very broad , it defines implicit areas of any
kind, steps, ramps, flat bits . I think that is too much in one
proposal to consider and detail.
As far as I see you proposed the same tagging for your proposal,
"type=area" for the relation, why so generic if the scope is reduced
to area steps?
Compatibility. If/when that goes ahead.
You are also including the same proposed roles and concepts for the
stairmodelling, "upper" and "lower". The main difference to the
original area relation proposal is that you didn't add the other
applications, like defining implicit or adding explicit barrier
features and punctual exceptions to these barriers.
I think barriers on stairs could be simply added as separate ways. This
would allow for barriers to be across the stairs at any angle, for any
length, for any pattern. It requires no additional tags.
Nor am I defining ramps, etc. Just steps is hard enough.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging