Re: [Talk-GB] (no subject)
Passenger does a lot of good stuff. There down stream customers use OSM, and credit it [0]. They release more up to date NaPTAN formatted data that NaPTAN its self [1]. Honestly it's a bit of a shame the OSM bus stop data is so neglected. Cj [0] https://www.islandbuses.info/explore [1] https://www.islandbuses.info/open-data ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] POI files of Pub/Restaurant chain
Hey, You'd have to contact them to ask what license those files are published under, or get explicit permission for it to be used in OSM. If you do make contact it may be better to ask for permission to use the store data from whole website which will include phone number, opening times, toilets/accessible toilets etc. If they don't respond or refuse a compatible license, you can still get address data from FHRS Open Data [0], along with linking it so clients could show it's hygiene score to end users. See my edit of it [1]. Cj [0] https://ratings.food.gov.uk/ [1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88052606 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] (no subject)
OSM gets a mention: "As the Department for Transport begins its journey to review and redesign NaPTAN, we’re open sourcing our Bus Stop Checker tool to help build back greener." https://www.discoverpassenger.com/2020/07/13/passengers-bus-stop-checker-data-quality-tools-now-open-source/ -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure
Hi, Cheers for clarifying the 'segregated' issue. I hadn't considered the benefit of having a positive surface tag even where it matches the default, so I'll start doing that when I map. Kind regards, Adam On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, 15:20 Martin - CycleStreets, < list-osm-talk...@cyclestreets.net> wrote: > > > On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, Adam Snape wrote: > > > I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does > > seem garbled at points > > Apologies; I think I was very tired when I wrote it. It was mainly > intended > as a starting point, to set out the ideal case of having those metadata > tags present, but things like surface should have been better written. > > I've fixed up the points noted, which I agree with. Obviously I hope > others > can enhance the section too. > > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure#Checklist_of_attributes_to_tag_for_good_cycle_routing > > > > Since when has the segregated=yes/no tag on a cycleway referred to the > > physical separation of cycle routes from the main carriageway rather > than > > the separation of cycles and pedestrians on the cycleway? > > Sorry, yes, fixed. > > > > Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does > > marking the surface on every single asphalt cycleway... > > Have fixed this also. The intention was to ensure that the surface is > considered when tagging - which is suprisingly still poor data in some > places. A fair proportion of route feedback we get comes down to cases > where routing has gone over a 'cycleway' that turns out to be some kind of > muddy or badly-surfaced track. These are obviously easy to fix in OSM once > the value is known. > > My general feeling on surface is that, while asphalt is of course assumed > by all routing engines I'm aware of, the amount of stuff in the UK that > isn't asphalt makes it worthwhile putting the surface in explicitly. This > demonstrates to future mappers that the value is actually known (rather > than assumed/unknown/ambiguous). > > > Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists > Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure
Mike Baggaley wrote: There should be no need for a tag to indicate whether a cycleway is separated from the road, as if the cycleway is part of the road it should not be tagged as highway=cycleway at all - it should be tagged as highway=(something else) + cycleway=*. The https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle page in the wiki is quite clear that there is only one way to map cycle lanes (i.e. not separated from road) whereas there are two ways to map cycle tracks (separated from a road). Agreed; a painted lane on the road should always be an attribute of the road. It's a lane by definition. The problem arises with 'hybrid' cycle lane/track stuff, for which a discussion was started at: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2020-June/024612.html Are these lanes or tracks? : https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/108979/ https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/143810/ https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/143794/ My general view is that where there is such partial physical segregation, but it is part of the road, it is probably best to use cycleway=track, oneway=yes as attributes on the main highway, but the stronger the segregation, the more I would lean to using a separate highway=cycleway, not least because it's easier then to put proper metadata on it. Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure
On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, Adam Snape wrote: I have utmost respect for cyclestreets but that tagging guidance does seem garbled at points Apologies; I think I was very tired when I wrote it. It was mainly intended as a starting point, to set out the ideal case of having those metadata tags present, but things like surface should have been better written. I've fixed up the points noted, which I agree with. Obviously I hope others can enhance the section too. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_2020_Q3_Project:_Cycling_Infrastructure#Checklist_of_attributes_to_tag_for_good_cycle_routing Since when has the segregated=yes/no tag on a cycleway referred to the physical separation of cycle routes from the main carriageway rather than the separation of cycles and pedestrians on the cycleway? Sorry, yes, fixed. Quite agree, whilst harmless oneway=no seems a bit OTT, as tbh does marking the surface on every single asphalt cycleway... Have fixed this also. The intention was to ensure that the surface is considered when tagging - which is suprisingly still poor data in some places. A fair proportion of route feedback we get comes down to cases where routing has gone over a 'cycleway' that turns out to be some kind of muddy or badly-surfaced track. These are obviously easy to fix in OSM once the value is known. My general feeling on surface is that, while asphalt is of course assumed by all routing engines I'm aware of, the amount of stuff in the UK that isn't asphalt makes it worthwhile putting the surface in explicitly. This demonstrates to future mappers that the value is actually known (rather than assumed/unknown/ambiguous). Martin, ** CycleStreets - For Cyclists, By Cyclists Developer, CycleStreets ** https://www.cyclestreets.net/___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] POI files of Pub/Restaurant chain
Hey all, I just accidentally found that the Pub next to "curious 20602512" is operated by a chain with quite a few places. They provide four different POI file formats with all their locations. As this data is pretty much openly accessible, I think there'd be no major issue with asking them if this data could be used to check all the places against OSM data and, if needed correct and/or create them, right? K ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
Whilst we are on USRNs (and UPRNs), I have updated https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_OpenData to include them. The whole discussion on how they join up could merit a wiki section or page of its own...somewhere to collect together all the snippets of information.just a gentle reminder that if we don't document stuff then it disappears into the ether. Sure, it's on Talk-GB archive, but it's still just talk. On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, 11:06 Mark Goodge, wrote: > > > On 15/07/2020 09:05, Phillip Barnett wrote: > > Could you not just ask the local mapper to knock on any doors in the > > street and ASK them the name? And then use that local knowledge? > > In this case, there are no doors on the street as it's just an access road! > > What might work would be to contact a local councillor, say, and ask > them for the name of the street. Their local knowledge can then be used > in OSM. > > If you wanted to pursue the FOI route, another option would be to ask > for documentation from the time when the road was named, showing the > decisions made. It would probably date from the time when the entire > estate was built. But the council may no longer have those records, as > it is some time ago. > > Mark > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Scheduled Monument
Just a thought, is there any value aligning with Wikidata ('heritage
designation') https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1435 or at least
have links?
On 15/07/2020 11:16, Brian Prangle wrote:
I use listed_status =Scheduled Monument
On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, 10:19 Tony OSM, > wrote:
Whilst mapping some of my local historic places I have found
Scheduled Monuments. They are described in the Historic England
list as Heritage Category: Scheduled Monument and has a List Entry
Number.
Building are listed as Heritage Category: Listed Building , Grade:
(I, II*, II) and a list entry number.
I can find tagging guidelines for a listed building but not for
Scheduled Monument or for any of the other Heritage Categories
(Protected Wreck Site,
Park and Garden, Battlefield, World Heritage Site, Certificate of
Immunity, Building Preservation Notice)
Can someone point me to the correct place for English guidelines?
I have looked at:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:listed_status
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:HE_ref
For a building or similar I presently use
HE_ref=1072653
heritage=2
heritage:operator= Historic England
historic= heritage
listed_status=Grade II
name= War Memorial Gateway to Astley Park
barrier=gate
start_date= mid C19
website=https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1072653
Could listed_status be expanded to hold the above definitions?
Tony Shield - TonyS999
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Scheduled Monument
I use listed_status =Scheduled Monument On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, 10:19 Tony OSM, wrote: > Whilst mapping some of my local historic places I have found Scheduled > Monuments. They are described in the Historic England list as Heritage > Category: Scheduled Monument and has a List Entry Number. > > Building are listed as Heritage Category: Listed Building , Grade: (I, > II*, II) and a list entry number. > > I can find tagging guidelines for a listed building but not for Scheduled > Monument or for any of the other Heritage Categories (Protected Wreck Site, > Park and Garden, Battlefield, World Heritage Site, Certificate of > Immunity, Building Preservation Notice) > > Can someone point me to the correct place for English guidelines? > > I have looked at: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:listed_status > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:HE_ref > > For a building or similar I presently use > HE_ref=1072653 heritage=2 heritage:operator= Historic England historic= > heritage listed_status=Grade II name= War Memorial Gateway to Astley Park > barrier=gate > start_date= mid C19 website= > https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1072653 > > Could listed_status be expanded to hold the above definitions? > > > Tony Shield - TonyS999 > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb > ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
On 15/07/2020 09:05, Phillip Barnett wrote: Could you not just ask the local mapper to knock on any doors in the street and ASK them the name? And then use that local knowledge? In this case, there are no doors on the street as it's just an access road! What might work would be to contact a local councillor, say, and ask them for the name of the street. Their local knowledge can then be used in OSM. If you wanted to pursue the FOI route, another option would be to ask for documentation from the time when the road was named, showing the decisions made. It would probably date from the time when the entire estate was built. But the council may no longer have those records, as it is some time ago. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
On 15/07/2020 08:35, o...@poppe.dev wrote: We wish to refer you to the Adopted Roads map for this information. This can found via: http://maps.ealing.gov.uk/Webreports/Highways/Adoptedroads.html You are free to use this information for your own use, including for non-commercial research purposes. It may also be used for the purposes of news reporting. Any other type of re-use, for example publishing the information, issuing copies to the public or marketing, will require our permission as copyright holder. If you intend to re-use this information in this manner you must apply to us. *** This is the FOI get-out; they can refer you to existing published information and therefore don't need to give a direct answer in the response. Unfortunately, that doesn't help with finding an ODbL-compliant source of the name. Secondly, lookig at that map, the adopted road scheme REALLY thinks, that this road is called "Fairfield Road". Darn. Well, it would, because the Adopted Roads list will match the NSG. In fact, it's the source of the information that Ealing submits to the NSG. So, now my question is this: The response said "If you intend to re-use this information in this manner you must apply to us.". Is this a process that I want to go through (given, I ever find out who "us" is) and then put the answer under https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Permissions? I suspect it would be fruitless anyway. They'll just refer you to the existing mechanisms for getting access to the NSG. But even if you were to pay the cost of that, it won't deliver the data in a suitable licence. In any sane world, of course, the idea that the names of roads should be subject to any form of restrictive license would be deemed utterly absurd. In fact, I'm reasonably confident that it wouldn't survive a legal challenge in this world. While the creation of a map, is, clearly, a work subject to copyright, a simple fact - and the name of a road is a fact - isn't. And a list of road names, created for the benefit of those who use and maintain the roads, has no independent economic value and therefore doesn't meet the criteria for database right. The rulings by the European Court of Justice in the William Hill and Fixtures Marketing cases are relevant here - essentially, the court concluded that if a list of facts (eg, a list of football matches, or horses entered in a race) is a necessary part of administering the competition, then that list of facts isn't subject to database right as it has no existence independently of the competition's functioning. And I'm pretty sure that a court would apply the same judgment to a list of street names. Councils have a legal obligation to maintain the canonical list of street names in their territory, and, in any case, having such a list is essential to the way that the council operates. So the list has no independent existence apart from that legal and operational necessity, and therefore doesn't qualify for database right. But, of course, OSM can't include data on the basis of a legal opinion. It would take an actual court case to establish the fundamental openness of street names, and OSM doesn't want to be the organisation which is part of that case. So, at the moment, we're still stuck as far as directly reusing names from the NSG is concerned. Mark ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Scheduled Monument
Not sure if this is of help - in Scotland there is this link https://www.historicenvironment.scot/advice-and-support/listing-scheduling-and-designations/scheduled-monuments/types-of-scheduled-monument/ which translates to 'Category' (e.g. Roman: camp) in the gis data set. On 15/07/2020 10:18, Tony OSM wrote: Whilst mapping some of my local historic places I have found Scheduled Monuments. They are described in the Historic England list as Heritage Category: Scheduled Monument and has a List Entry Number. Building are listed as Heritage Category: Listed Building , Grade: (I, II*, II) and a list entry number. I can find tagging guidelines for a listed building but not for Scheduled Monument or for any of the other Heritage Categories (Protected Wreck Site, Park and Garden, Battlefield, World Heritage Site, Certificate of Immunity, Building Preservation Notice) Can someone point me to the correct place for English guidelines? I have looked at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:listed_status https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:HE_ref For a building or similar I presently use HE_ref=1072653 heritage=2 heritage:operator= Historic England historic= heritage listed_status=Grade II name= War Memorial Gateway to Astley Park barrier=gate start_date= mid C19 website=https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1072653 Could listed_status be expanded to hold the above definitions? Tony Shield - TonyS999 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] Scheduled Monument
Whilst mapping some of my local historic places I have found Scheduled Monuments. They are described in the Historic England list as Heritage Category: Scheduled Monument and has a List Entry Number. Building are listed as Heritage Category: Listed Building , Grade: (I, II*, II) and a list entry number. I can find tagging guidelines for a listed building but not for Scheduled Monument or for any of the other Heritage Categories (Protected Wreck Site, Park and Garden, Battlefield, World Heritage Site, Certificate of Immunity, Building Preservation Notice) Can someone point me to the correct place for English guidelines? I have looked at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:listed_status https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:HE_ref For a building or similar I presently use HE_ref=1072653 heritage=2 heritage:operator= Historic England historic= heritage listed_status=Grade II name= War Memorial Gateway to Astley Park barrier=gate start_date= mid C19 website=https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1072653 Could listed_status be expanded to hold the above definitions? Tony Shield - TonyS999 ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
Could you not just ask the local mapper to knock on any doors in the street and ASK them the name? And then use that local knowledge? Sent from my iPhone > On 15 Jul 2020, at 08:36, o...@poppe.dev wrote: > > >> I've made an FOI request yesterday and am awaiting a reply. What we could >> also do is find a local mapper to answer what he knows about the street. > > Getting back to something fun, this is what turned up yesterday: > > *** > Your request: > In the ELTHORNE ward, SOA E01001248, there’s a small road-stub between the > area ROYAL GDNS. and BOSTON GDNS., that runs approximately between the > WGS84-coordinates 51.4981160°N 0.3283307°W and 51.4984358°N 0.3273347°W > (OSGB36 between 516136/179011 and 516205/179048). > As an editor in OpenStreetMap I am looking for the NAME of this street stub, > that is available under the Open Government License or any other > OpenDatabaseLicense-compliant form of publication. > > Your request has been assessed and the following information is provided in > response: > > We wish to refer you to the Adopted Roads map for this information. > This can found via: > http://maps.ealing.gov.uk/Webreports/Highways/Adoptedroads.html > You are free to use this information for your own use, including for > non-commercial research purposes. It may also be used for the purposes of > news reporting. Any other type of re-use, for example publishing the > information, issuing copies to the public or marketing, will require our > permission as copyright holder. > If you intend to re-use this information in this manner you must apply to us. > *** > > Firstly, that reply came mere hours after I changed the way to "noname=yes" > and closing the note so that StreetComplete wouldn't complain any longer > (adding ref:usrn=20602512 of course) after I had spoken to a local mapper and > he went to the street and thoroughly checked again, that there's really no > street name signed whatsoever. This adds to impecable timing in my life over > the last few weeks *sic* > > Secondly, lookig at that map, the adopted road scheme REALLY thinks, that > this road is called "Fairfield Road". Darn. > > So, now my question is this: The response said "If you intend to re-use this > information in this manner you must apply to us.". Is this a process that I > want to go through (given, I ever find out who "us" is) and then put the > answer under https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Permissions? > > K > > ___ > Talk-GB mailing list > Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure
>> this point if we're actually advocating the hitherto undocumented usage of >> segregated=yes to mean 'cycleway is separate from main carriageway' because >> I suspect I'm not the only one whose been using it as per the wiki to show >> where bicycles and pedestrians have their own designated lanes within a >> shared use cycleway. We can't use both. >+1 (separate lanes for cycles & pedestrians) >+1 for "segregated" referring to separate (or not) pedestrian and cycle lanes >in a shared cycleway There should be no need for a tag to indicate whether a cycleway is separated from the road, as if the cycleway is part of the road it should not be tagged as highway=cycleway at all - it should be tagged as highway=(something else) + cycleway=*. The https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle page in the wiki is quite clear that there is only one way to map cycle lanes (i.e. not separated from road) whereas there are two ways to map cycle tracks (separated from a road). Regards, Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] The curious case of USRN 20602512
> I've made an FOI request yesterday and am awaiting a reply. What we could > also do is find a local mapper to answer what he knows about the street. Getting back to something fun, this is what turned up yesterday: *** Your request: In the ELTHORNE ward, SOA E01001248, there’s a small road-stub between the area ROYAL GDNS. and BOSTON GDNS., that runs approximately between the WGS84-coordinates 51.4981160°N 0.3283307°W and 51.4984358°N 0.3273347°W (OSGB36 between 516136/179011 and 516205/179048). As an editor in OpenStreetMap I am looking for the NAME of this street stub, that is available under the Open Government License or any other OpenDatabaseLicense-compliant form of publication. Your request has been assessed and the following information is provided in response: We wish to refer you to the Adopted Roads map for this information. This can found via: http://maps.ealing.gov.uk/Webreports/Highways/Adoptedroads.html You are free to use this information for your own use, including for non-commercial research purposes. It may also be used for the purposes of news reporting. Any other type of re-use, for example publishing the information, issuing copies to the public or marketing, will require our permission as copyright holder. If you intend to re-use this information in this manner you must apply to us. *** Firstly, that reply came mere hours after I changed the way to "noname=yes" and closing the note so that StreetComplete wouldn't complain any longer (adding ref:usrn=20602512 of course) after I had spoken to a local mapper and he went to the street and thoroughly checked again, that there's really no street name signed whatsoever. This adds to impecable timing in my life over the last few weeks *sic* Secondly, lookig at that map, the adopted road scheme REALLY thinks, that this road is called "Fairfield Road". Darn. So, now my question is this: The response said "If you intend to re-use this information in this manner you must apply to us.". Is this a process that I want to go through (given, I ever find out who "us" is) and then put the answer under https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Permissions? K ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] Q3 2020 Quarterly project Cycle Infrastructure
>On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 22:07, ael > wrote: >On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 09:30:00PM >+0100, >Adam Snape wrote: >> >> this point if we're actually advocating the hitherto undocumented usage of >> segregated=yes to mean 'cycleway is separate from main carriageway' because >> I suspect I'm not the only one whose been using it as per the wiki to show >> where bicycles and pedestrians have their own designated lanes within a >> shared use cycleway. We can't use both. >+1 (separate lanes for cycles & pedestrians) +1 for "segregated" referring to separate (or not) pedestrian and cycle lanes in a shared cycleway Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 09:30:00PM +0100, Adam Snape wrote: > > this point if we're actually advocating the hitherto undocumented usage of > segregated=yes to mean 'cycleway is separate from main carriageway' because > I suspect I'm not the only one whose been using it as per the wiki to show > where bicycles and pedestrians have their own designated lanes within a > shared use cycleway. We can't use both. +1 (separate lanes for cycles & pedestrians) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
