Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
2009/6/9 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: I'm curious if bicycle boulevards would qualify as living streets, given that a living street would most closely describe a bicycle boulevard in OSM terms, though a bicycle boulevard might lack pedestrian facilities. Frequently, these are not streets you would want to let the kids play in, as the volume of fast-moving, near-silent vehicles would present a very real collision hazard at peak traffic times. This kind of way has sprung up only in the last 10 years or so, and almost all of them were formerly highway=residential prior to becoming bicycle boulevards. I would still like to see the cycleroad-proposal become reality, because these kind of streets IMHO merit their own class. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/cycleroad cheers, Martin ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Shaun McDonald schrieb: On 10 Jun 2009, at 03:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/6/9 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: I'm curious if bicycle boulevards would qualify as living streets, given that a living street would most closely describe a bicycle boulevard in OSM terms, though a bicycle boulevard might lack pedestrian facilities. Frequently, these are not streets you would want to let the kids play in, as the volume of fast-moving, near-silent vehicles would present a very real collision hazard at peak traffic times. This kind of way has sprung up only in the last 10 years or so, and almost all of them were formerly highway=residential prior to becoming bicycle boulevards. I would still like to see the cycleroad-proposal become reality, because these kind of streets IMHO merit their own class. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/cycleroad In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway. Shaun +1 for me. Even in germany on these roads there are no additional rights-of-way in comparison to normal cycleways (except that bicycles get the officially allowance to drive next to each other and not just inline. buts that's piece of cake ;) ). A normal cycleway with motorcar/agricultural/...=yes/destination/... would be exactly the same. Regards Mario ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Shaun McDonald wrote: On 10 Jun 2009, at 03:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/6/9 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: I'm curious if bicycle boulevards would qualify as living streets, given that a living street would most closely describe a bicycle boulevard in OSM terms, though a bicycle boulevard might lack pedestrian facilities. Frequently, these are not streets you would want to let the kids play in, as the volume of fast-moving, near-silent vehicles would present a very real collision hazard at peak traffic times. This kind of way has sprung up only in the last 10 years or so, and almost all of them were formerly highway=residential prior to becoming bicycle boulevards. I would still like to see the cycleroad-proposal become reality, because these kind of streets IMHO merit their own class. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/cycleroad In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway. In Germany bicycle boulevards and normal cycle ways are different types of roads with different rules applying to them. Bicycle boulevards also tend to look more like proper roads than cycle ways. For example residental roads are often re-designated as bicycle boulevards. I would find it odd if these would then appear only as dashed blue lines on the map. Cheers, Christoph ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Martin Koppenhoefer schrieb: 2009/6/10 Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.uk: In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway. there are some main differences though: usually they are normal streets changed in designation. That is cars are allowed but don't have the priority and must drive very slowly, they have pavements/sidewalks, they are wide like streets, the give priority to bicycles on crossings, etc. all of which is not the case for cycleways. Martin yes, it's all about designation. normal roads are designated for motor_vehicles. But these roads are only designated for bicycles. That's why it's highway=cycleway + motor_vehicle=yes (instead of an implied motor_vehicle=designated for normal roads. Regards Mario ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
2009/6/10 Mario Salvini salv...@t-online.de: there are some main differences though: usually they are normal streets changed in designation. That is cars are allowed but don't have the priority and must drive very slowly, they have pavements/sidewalks, they are wide like streets, the give priority to bicycles on crossings, etc. all of which is not the case for cycleways. Martin yes, it's all about designation. normal roads are designated for motor_vehicles. But these roads are only designated for bicycles. That's why it's highway=cycleway + motor_vehicle=yes (instead of an implied motor_vehicle=designated for normal roads. Normal roads do not have any special designation _by default_ - where did you read that? These cycleroads *are* normal roads, just with a special traffic rule applied. They do not have much in common with ordinary cycleways. -Martin ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Paul Johnson schrieb: Shaun McDonald wrote: On 10 Jun 2009, at 03:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/6/9 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: I'm curious if bicycle boulevards would qualify as living streets, given that a living street would most closely describe a bicycle boulevard in OSM terms, though a bicycle boulevard might lack pedestrian facilities. Frequently, these are not streets you would want to let the kids play in, as the volume of fast-moving, near-silent vehicles would present a very real collision hazard at peak traffic times. This kind of way has sprung up only in the last 10 years or so, and almost all of them were formerly highway=residential prior to becoming bicycle boulevards. I would still like to see the cycleroad-proposal become reality, because these kind of streets IMHO merit their own class. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/cycleroad In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway. Do cycleways normally allow motorized vehicles? Bicycle boulevards do (even if they do make using one an exceptional pain). if motorized vehicles are allowed is country-specific. In germany e.g. cycleways are _only_ for bicycles (not even for pedestrians). Otherwise it's allowed by additional signs. In Germany cycletreets are normally in residential areas. They have often sidewalks. And sometimes motorized vehicles are allowed thru additional signs. so my solution for a standard cyclestreet (e.g. for germany) is: highway=cycleway (because the use of the decking is as a cycleway - designated for. but highway=residential could be possible to.) cycleway=cyclestreet ( to differ between lane/track/street) footway=both (without that e.g. in germany pedestrian would be not allowed. but with footway=* is signalized that there is a lane/way designated for pedestrians) motor_vehicle = yes (by default of a cycleway e.g. in germany they are not allowed) Regards Mario ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Heiko Jacobs schrieb: In gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap Christoph Boehme christ...@b3e.net wrote: In Germany bicycle boulevards and normal cycle ways are different types of roads with different rules applying to them. Bicycle boulevards also tend to look more like proper roads than cycle ways. For example Indeed not really. only the explicit allowance to drive next to each other instead of just inline. the rest is exact the same as on normal cycleways. residental roads are often re-designated as bicycle boulevards. I would find it odd if these would then appear only as dashed blue lines on the map. Yes, it doesn't look proper...: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=49.0777lon=8.3986zoom=18 Erbprinzenstrasze are the two examples on the wiki page a posted before MfG Heiko Jacobs Z! IRCnet Mueck but that's a lack of rendering, not of data. ;) Regards Mario ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Christoph Böhme schrieb: Mario Salvini salv...@t-online.de schrieb: Heiko Jacobs schrieb: In gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap Christoph Boehme christ...@b3e.net wrote: In Germany bicycle boulevards and normal cycle ways are different types of roads with different rules applying to them. Bicycle boulevards also tend to look more like proper roads than cycle ways. For example Indeed not really. only the explicit allowance to drive next to each other instead of just inline. the rest is exact the same as on normal cycleways. .. and it requires cyclists and all other allowed vehicles to only drive at moderate speeds (mäßige Geschwindigkeit, 25-30km/h). IMHO this does not apply to normal cycleways. Christoph yes it requires modarate speed - thats something lower 30 kph due to german law). exactly as on normal cycleways with foot=yes or any other allowed non-cycle-vehicles (e.g. access=agricultural or destination). :) Best regards Mario ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Mario Salvini salv...@t-online.de schrieb: Heiko Jacobs schrieb: In gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap Christoph Boehme christ...@b3e.net wrote: In Germany bicycle boulevards and normal cycle ways are different types of roads with different rules applying to them. Bicycle boulevards also tend to look more like proper roads than cycle ways. For example Indeed not really. only the explicit allowance to drive next to each other instead of just inline. the rest is exact the same as on normal cycleways. .. and it requires cyclists and all other allowed vehicles to only drive at moderate speeds (mäßige Geschwindigkeit, 25-30km/h). IMHO this does not apply to normal cycleways. Christoph ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
On 10 Jun 2009, at 03:25, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2009/6/9 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org: I'm curious if bicycle boulevards would qualify as living streets, given that a living street would most closely describe a bicycle boulevard in OSM terms, though a bicycle boulevard might lack pedestrian facilities. Frequently, these are not streets you would want to let the kids play in, as the volume of fast-moving, near-silent vehicles would present a very real collision hazard at peak traffic times. This kind of way has sprung up only in the last 10 years or so, and almost all of them were formerly highway=residential prior to becoming bicycle boulevards. I would still like to see the cycleroad-proposal become reality, because these kind of streets IMHO merit their own class. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/cycleroad In my eyes, that road would be simply tagged with highway=cycleway. Shaun smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Karl Newman wrote: *Avoid duplicate copies of messages?* When you are listed explicitly in the To: or Cc: headers of a list message, you can opt to not receive another copy from the mailing list. Select /Yes/ to avoid receiving copies from the mailing list; select /No/ to receive copies. If the list has member personalized messages enabled, and you elect to receive copies, every copy will have a X-Mailman-Copy: yes header added to it. This does not work: What about gmane users? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Mario Salvini wrote: Even in germany on these roads there are no additional rights-of-way in comparison to normal cycleways (except that bicycles get the officially allowance to drive next to each other and not just inline. buts that's piece of cake ;) ). A normal cycleway with motorcar/agricultural/...=yes/destination/... would be exactly the same. We're getting very much into national detail here but just to give an example, look at this aerial image (which is 100 metres from my office BTW): http://maps.google.de/maps?ll=49.007912,8.378746spn=0.000729,0.001026t=hz=20 The road going east-west is a former residential road with different lanes for each direction of travel, plus diagonal parking spaces in the middle. It is over 20 metres wide. This road has now been designated a Fahrradstrasse (cycle road). Motorized traffic is still allowed at adequate speeds (whatever that means). I'm not convinced this is a national detail, as it's one that I brought up given that they're a common fixture in Portland, Oregon; and Victoria and Vancouver, BC. The fact you also have them in Germany strikes me as further evidence that cycleroads are not a national detail, but rather an international development in highway design. While I am not a big fan of endless tagging discussions, tagging the road above as highway=cycleway, car=yes strikes me as grossly misleading. Maybe it should simply retain highway=residential. After all, the residentialness of the road has not changed one bit since it was designated a cycle road. On the other hand, it's no longer as minor as a residential road, nor has the same use as a residential road (as it's throughbound for cyclists). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Michael Barabanov wrote: Can we use relations same way as for more complex cycle routes for this one? Yes, though you're not limited to just a specific kind of way for relations. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Ted Percival wrote: If it's not a through road for vehicles but is for bicycles that could be a challenge to tag access restrictions on. Perhaps a node with barrier=* if there is one. The barriers aren't usually barriers as such, but rather turn restrictions in place with exceptions for cyclists to continue. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
Re: [Talk-ca] [OSM-talk] Bicycle boulevards
Karl Newman wrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: Karl Newman wrote: *Avoid duplicate copies of messages?* When you are listed explicitly in the To: or Cc: headers of a list message, you can opt to not receive another copy from the mailing list. Select /Yes/ to avoid receiving copies from the mailing list; select /No/ to receive copies. If the list has member personalized messages enabled, and you elect to receive copies, every copy will have a X-Mailman-Copy: yes header added to it. This does not work: What about gmane users? I don't really know how gmane works from a posting perspective (e.g., do you have to be subscribed to the mailing list to be able to post from gmane, like you do on nabble?), but on http://gmane.org/post.php I found this: - What address is used? The news-to-mail authorization script uses the From header to determine who's sent the message. If the Reply-To header exists, that header is used instead. If you wish From to take precedence over Reply-To, insert a non-empty Gmane-From header as well. If you wish to redirect replies to your messages back to the mailing list, add a Mail-Copies-To: never header to your messages. That will result in a Mail-Followup-To header being generated by Gmane. These headers are heeded by quite a few mail readers. If you add a Reply-To header to your messages that points to a mailing list, the message will be silently dropped. Right, what gmane is describing assumes that everyone on the mailing list is using a mailer that was written or has been actively been maintained in the last 10 years, ie, provides a minimum amount of common functionality. The problem with that, as I see it, is that there's a number of people who can't, or won't, switch away from an underfeatured mail reader like gmail's web interface or Microsoft Outlook or Outlook Express, which lack features that would pay attention to such headers. Followup to list or reply to list is a feature most mailers have these days; and by gmane's example you gave, it's reasonable for people to know about and use said features these days. Reply and Reply to All ignore mail-followup-to headers; reply/followup to list would pick up those headers. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
