Proposal talk:Avoid

I'd rather see the hazards themselves categorized in a systematic way, that would allow deriving information on the sections to avoid for any user. Even without that the avoid/prefer is something that doesn't belong in the access keys, but must be some other key; to avoid conflicts with legal access tags needed on the same way, as well as not to confuse software disregarding such new values. Alv 12:55, 7 August 2010 (BST)

Which tag would you suggest? It's currently in a very early stage of discussion and I always appreciate good ideas. --FK270673 13:24, 7 August 2010 (BST)

What first came to mind was something along the lines of foot:avoid=yes or preferred:motorcar=yes; another possibility would be recommend:foot=avoid/preferred. There has to be a more detailed criteria for choosing the ways where such "recommendation" is relevant for (statistically) most users - otherwise it turns too subjective. I'd expect to see these at most on less than one tenth of a percent of the navigable ways, anyway. Alv 13:33, 7 August 2010 (BST)

Alv, your variant is better. Access for legal/physical possibility, and recommendations in their own tag.

I believe having this as an access tag is a handy option because it adds a degree of mode-specific, local knowledge to the map. Yeah, it's subjective, but so is the highway= tag outside the UK... Paul Johnson 06:15, 20 August 2010 (BST)

This tag (bicycle=avoid) is being used by Paul on highways in Portland after losing the argument (http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-August/thread.html#3370) to use bicycle=destination on ways where motorists would have to (shock) actually pay attention to cyclists. This is not what access tags are intended for. --NE2 23:18, 23 August 2010 (BST)

The reasons

We should map the reasons instead of mapping that something should be "avoided". Otherwise it may be something that may be in conflict with Verifiability. --Kslotte 14:12, 27 August 2010 (BST)