I am tagging a named trail (the Avon trail) where it goes through private land and there is only private access for part of the time. I tagged it as foot=private foot:conditional=permissive@(Apr 15-Nov 30 dawn-dusk);private@(Dec 01-Apr 14;dusk-dawn) which is correct. But the unconditional part is much more prominently displayed than the conditional part in the web interface. Is there a better way to tag this situation? I really don't want to have permissive show up more prominently than the conditional access nor do I want to have nothing show up there as well.

asked 31 Jan, 15:15

Peter%20Patel-Schneider's gravatar image

Peter Patel-...
41227
accept rate: 0%


If the tagging is correct, I wouldn't worry about it. There will always be edge cases were the rendering is not as we'd like; there will always be routers that don't understand foot:conditional.

At some point anyone writing a router or a renderer has to ask themselves how complicated they want to make it before they stop.

permanent link
This answer is marked "community wiki".

answered 03 Feb, 21:55

SomeoneElse's gravatar image

SomeoneElse ♦
34.6k69359830
accept rate: 15%

I tend to put the more "cautious" option in the standard tag and the other option in the conditional tag. Say there is a 30km/h speed limit in front of a school during day time I would tag max_speed=30 and maxspeed:conditional=50@("night time"). So an app not knowing conditional tags would display the safer 30 and a driver at night can take a joy in driving faster when they discover the signage if they like it.

Following that logic I would tag the private access as standard access and the permissive as conditional access just as you did it. That way hikers would discover a welcomed shortcut when they turn up at the location instead of having to take a long detour to what they had originally planned assuming a open path in March.

Still, I believe your tagging is a bit redundant. The tags
foot=private
foot:conditional=permissive@(Apr 15-Nov 30 dawn-dusk)
already define the rule completely. The foot= gives the standard case and the foot:conditional= the exception. Your additional ;private@(Dec 01-Apr 14;dusk-dawn) merely repeats the standard. There is no harm done doing it that way it may just cause tagging errors later on when someone else tries to update the tagging.

permanent link

answered 04 Feb, 09:10

TZorn's gravatar image

TZorn
11.1k554205
accept rate: 15%

These are good heuristics - general/non-conditional is more restrictive; don't be redundant.

But in some cases redundancy seems like a good idea - vehicle=private and snowmobile=private to emphasize that snowmobiles are not allowed (partly because some people don't consider snowmobiles to be vehicles).

(09 Feb, 17:20) Peter Patel-...
Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:

×49

question asked: 31 Jan, 15:15

question was seen: 477 times

last updated: 11 Feb, 09:32

powered by OSQA