Proposal:Path: Difference between revisions
(→Voting) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
;Proposed-by: [[User:Cbm|Cbm]] and [[User:Hawke|Hawke]] |
|||
;Status: Voting |
|||
;Proposed-by: [[cbm|cbm]] |
|||
;Proposed-date: 2007-12-26 |
;Proposed-date: 2007-12-26 |
||
==Rationale== |
==Rationale== |
||
Provide a value for a nonspecific or multi-use path. |
Provide a value for a nonspecific or multi-use path. |
||
Provide a method to indicate that a route is a designated route for a particular use, as opposed to merely being allowed to use it. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
* '''"foot/bicycle/horse/xc_ski/...=designated"''' (add new core-value to '''"Key:access"''') |
|||
(for better unterstanding, read the discussing on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Trail, because this approval arise from it) |
|||
==Applies to== |
==Applies to== |
||
[[ |
* [[Key:highway|Highway]] |
||
* [[Key:access|Access]] |
|||
==Usage== |
==Usage== |
||
This proposal adds two values to existing keys: |
|||
'''"highway=path"''' would be a much better way to combine footway, cycleway, bridleway in one highway-value. |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
<br>By adding a '''"designated"''' to the '''core-values''' of '''"Key:access"''' we can capture the real world even more accurate, without losing information. |
|||
* {{Tag|access|designated}} |
|||
{{Tag|highway|path}} is a generic path, either multi-use, or unspecified usage. The default access restriction of {{Tag|highway|path}} is "open to all non-motorized vehicles, but emergency vehicles are allowed". |
|||
* e.g. bicycle=designated, foot=yes for a cycleway which allows foot, or foot=designated, bicycle=yes for the opposite |
|||
{{Tag|highway|path}}+{{Tag|bicycle|designated}}+{{Tag|foot|yes}} is considered equivalent to {{Tag|highway|cycleway}} |
|||
* e.g. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Zeichen_240.svg or http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Zeichen_241.svg signed ways are nether a foot- nor a cycleway; they are both by definition, but to can't take this correctly at the moment. If there would be only "highway=path" you can catch it totally right -> highway=path bicycle=designated foot=designated. A sideeffect is also, that the renderers can perfectly adjust themselves to their's needs. |
|||
{{Tag|highway|path}}+{{Tag|foot|designated}} is considered equivalent to {{Tag|highway|footway}} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
{{Tag|highway|path}}+{{Tag|horse|designated}}+{{Tag|bicycle|yes}}+{{Tag|foot|yes}} is equivalent to {{Tag|highway|bridleway}} |
|||
<tag k="highway" v="path"/> |
|||
<tag k="bicycle" v="yes"/> |
|||
{{Tag|access|designated}} indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically by a government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport. The specific meaning varies according to jurisdiction. It may imply extra usage rights for the given mode of transport, or may be just a suggested route. |
|||
<tag k="horse" v="yes"/> |
|||
<tag k="snowmobile" v="yes"/> |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
<tag k="xc_ski" v="yes"/> |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
* {{Tag|highway|path}} |
|||
* {{Tag|bicycle|designated}} |
|||
* {{Tag|horse|designated}} |
|||
* {{Tag|snowmobile|designated}} |
|||
* {{Tag|ski|designated}} |
|||
==Deprecates== |
==Deprecates== |
||
As an option, the following highway values may be deprecated (not depreciated!). When this proposal comes to a vote, please also indicate whether you would approve deprecation of these values as well as adding the other new values. Deprecation means that they would be discouraged from future use. In no way does it imply that they would be forbidden, nor would they be removed from the existing database or renderers (until such time as they are no longer in use). |
|||
{{Tag|highway|cycleway}} |
{{Tag|highway|cycleway}} |
||
| Line 56: | Line 59: | ||
Please read the talk page before voting. |
Please read the talk page before voting. |
||
As of 18:01, 11 March 2008, it appears that the proposal was on its way to rejection. |
|||
* I '''approve''' this proposal. --[[User:Hawke|Hawke]] 21:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* I '''approve''' this proposal. --[[User:Deelkar|Deelkar]] [[User_talk:Deelkar|(talk)]] 21:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
It has now been heavily modified, taking the comments of the voters into account, and is back to RFC status. |
|||
* I '''approve''' this proposal. --[[User:Chrischan|Chrischan]] 22:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* I '''disapprove''' of this proposal. --[[User:Richard|Richard]] 22:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC) (comments moved to talk page) |
|||
Voting will open again after the RFC period. |
|||
* I '''disapprove''' of this proposal. I do not think this really solves a problem (and in fact don't see much of a problem with the existing system) plus the additional required tag bloat raises the barrier to entry and it would eventually get tedious typing the extra required tags over and over. --[[User:Thomas Wood|Thomas Wood]] 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* I '''disapprove''' of this proposal as long as it deprecates the currently used tags. I see no problem to have this as just an addition to the current tags. --[[User:Cartinus|Cartinus]] 23:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* I '''disapprove''' of this proposal as long as it deprecates the currently used tags. We should be making less work for mappers, not more. --[[User:DavidDean|DavidDean]] 23:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* I '''disapprove''' of this proposal as long as it deprecates the currently used tags. --[[User:PerroVerd|PerroVerd]] 00:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* I '''approve''' this proposal. --[[User:Gernot|Gernot]] 09:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* I '''disapprove''' this proposal, it throws away valuable information about the physical appearance or main usage of a way. cycle/hiking/whatever-routes should be tagged without affecting the highway-value. Think of routes that use ways currently tagged as highway=track, highway=residential etc. Also, there is a difference in quality and expected surface between e.g. highway=cycleway and highway=bridleway. I think its much better to use relations to add different way to routes. (just because a mtb route uses a bridleway, does this make the way not a bridleway?) It also adds nothing that cant be done with the the current scheme. At least, please do not deprecate 20% of OSM data, destroying valuable information. Thank you. [[User:Grenzdebil|Grenzdebil]] 09:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* I '''approve''' this proposal. --[[User:Colin Marquardt|Colin Marquardt]] 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* I '''disapprove''' of this proposal. [[User:Socks|Socks]] 16:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* I '''disapprove''' of this proposal. I don't believe it is anywhere near a big enough improvement over the current system to justify depreciating heavily used tags --[[User:Thewinch|Thewinch]] 17:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
* I '''disapprove''' of this proposal. IMO it doesn't add enough benefits over the existing system, though I agree on the basic matter. [[User:SlowRider|SlowRider]] 18:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC) |
|||
[[Category: |
[[Category:RFC Open]] |
||
Revision as of 19:59, 11 March 2008
Rationale
Provide a value for a nonspecific or multi-use path.
Provide a method to indicate that a route is a designated route for a particular use, as opposed to merely being allowed to use it.
Applies to
Usage
This proposal adds two values to existing keys:
highway=path is a generic path, either multi-use, or unspecified usage. The default access restriction of highway=path is "open to all non-motorized vehicles, but emergency vehicles are allowed".
highway=path+bicycle=designated+foot=yes is considered equivalent to highway=cycleway
highway=path+foot=designated is considered equivalent to highway=footway
highway=path+horse=designated+bicycle=yes+foot=yes is equivalent to highway=bridleway
access=designated indicates that a route has been specially designated (typically by a government) for use by a particular mode (or modes) of transport. The specific meaning varies according to jurisdiction. It may imply extra usage rights for the given mode of transport, or may be just a suggested route.
Examples
A path for bicycles, horses, snowmobiles, and cross-country skiing could be tagged as:
Deprecates
As an option, the following highway values may be deprecated (not depreciated!). When this proposal comes to a vote, please also indicate whether you would approve deprecation of these values as well as adding the other new values. Deprecation means that they would be discouraged from future use. In no way does it imply that they would be forbidden, nor would they be removed from the existing database or renderers (until such time as they are no longer in use).
Rendering
This should probably be rendered similar to current highway=footway/cycleway/bridleway with color depending on the allowed usage.
Comments
Please use the talk page.
Voting
Please read the talk page before voting.
As of 18:01, 11 March 2008, it appears that the proposal was on its way to rejection.
It has now been heavily modified, taking the comments of the voters into account, and is back to RFC status.
Voting will open again after the RFC period.