Hi!
Am 05.01.2010 03:51, schrieb Steve Bennett:
The important bit is to point out useful
information to cyclists - and labelling every single pedestrian path as
a cycleway would clearly be wrong.
This is exactly why I think it is a bad thing. It is too strongly biased
towards a cyclists
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't that what a map is? Some kind of look-up service for the real
world?
There is a layer of interpretation in the middle, that's the crucial
difference.
I don't know what you mean. That tags have definitions?
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
Real
cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
avoid.
highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P
___
Tagging mailing list
Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
Real
cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
avoid.
highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P
Or indicated on an other way (e.g. with a different color of
Hi!
Am 05.01.2010 11:00, schrieb Roy Wallace:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nopekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
Real
cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
avoid.
highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P
There's a considerable fraction of mappers
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
avoid.
I know German cyclists are fast, but treating cycleways like motorways is
ridiculous :)
But seriously, you have a point - usability by bikes should be on
2010/1/5 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de:
Hi!
Am 05.01.2010 11:45, schrieb Richard Mann:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de
mailto:ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
avoid.
I know German cyclists are fast, but
2010/1/5 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
Right, I'm not confusing the terms. Some people have used the word
designed in definitions, as in designed for bicycles. That's all.
btw: is there a difference between dedicated and designated?
Legally. Although general practice (I believe) is that
2010/1/5 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
Well, I*M*HO, it's close to perfect. If you (well, a reasonable person with
some common sense when it comes to bike paths - not something Roy would
admit to :)) looked through a map, and every time you saw something mapped
as a bike path, it
Hi!
Am 05.01.2010 12:45, schrieb Richard Mann:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de
It is prohibited by law and you can get fined for it.
It's ridiculous because pedestrians can cross a cycleway on the level
(try that on a motorway), and 99.999% of the time pedestrians
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
My point is: There is an important difference between
- a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others)
- some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling
About like the difference between
- a road marked
On 01/05/2010 06:29 AM, Nop wrote:
The motorway example was of your making and yes, it is bad. :-)
My point is: There is an important difference between
- a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others)
- some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling
But is it a
Currently there is discussion on using relations to group segments of
a highway occurring:
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2599
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
Real
cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
avoid.
highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P
No. There seems to be some confusion in the Portland area about
On 01/05/2010 01:32 PM, John Smith wrote:
Currently there is discussion on using relations to group segments of
a highway occurring:
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2599
In that ticket, you wrote: “we think administrative polygons should be
used for custom highway shields, instead of
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
... lets find other tags to make the
distinctions we want, and discourage people from reading too much into
highway=cycleway (I wouldn't go so far as to deprecate it, just insist that
people add tags
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
My point is: There is an important difference between
- a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others)
- some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling
...
I would suggest that the difference
Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net writes:
On 01/05/2010 01:32 PM, John Smith wrote:
Currently there is discussion on using relations to group segments of
a highway occurring:
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2599
In that ticket, you wrote: “we think administrative polygons should be
On 01/05/2010 03:05 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Alex Mauer
hawke-jojdulvogomqvbxzion...@public.gmane.org wrote:
My point is: There is an important difference between
- a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others)
- some way that looks like it was
On 01/05/2010 03:45 PM, Matthias Julius wrote:
Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net writes:
On 01/05/2010 01:32 PM, John Smith wrote:
Currently there is discussion on using relations to group segments of
a highway occurring:
http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2599
In that ticket, you wrote:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
Close - but bicycle=yes just means bicycles are legal
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access). For suitability
(whatever that means), I'd suggest bicycle=yes + bicycle:suitable=yes.
In point of fact I would do
I'm talking about people adding network=us_ny_ny_co
I'm not talking about things like network=NH, ref=1 or ref=M5
As for how it might render
Wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Custom_Highway_Shields
On 06/01/2010, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
On 01/05/2010 03:45 PM, Matthias Julius wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
maybe you missed NOP's contribution in one of the parallel threads, so
again: your point of view is bike-focused, so you think every way or path
suitable for cycling should be tagged a cycleway.
I'll restate
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and
highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter.
Each to their own, but I'd prefer:
highway=cycleway+designation=official_cycleway (or whatever) (for those
officially
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll restate it: every way or path *especially* suitable. More suitable than
average. Much more suitable than average, if you like.
Anyway, I'm obviously not getting my message across, so I'm going to have to
think
On 01/05/2010 06:26 PM, Nick Austin wrote:
Just to be clear, highway=cycleway is shorthand for highway=footway +
bicycle=yes and highway=bridleway is shorthand for highway=footway +
horse=yes.
No it’s not. highway=cycleway is shorthand for
highway=path+bicycle=designated and highway=bridleway
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Nick Austin nick.w.aus...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to be clear, highway=cycleway is shorthand for highway=footway +
bicycle=yes and highway=bridleway is shorthand for highway=footway +
horse=yes. There's no need for this definition creep nonsense.
BTW, footway
On 01/05/2010 05:23 PM, John Smith wrote:
I'm talking about people adding network=us_ny_ny_co
I’ve never seen that, either in use or anywhere in wiki documentation.
Where would that be used?
I'm not talking about things like network=NH, ref=1 or ref=M5
As for how it might render
2010/1/6 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
maybe you missed NOP's contribution in one of the parallel threads, so
again: your point of view is bike-focused, so you think every way or path
suitable for
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Why is that? Presumably you think the dedicated cycleway is a better way to
get somewhere. I argue that it's not the sign that makes that the case, it's
the construction of the path, its location, etc.
Doesn't the lack
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
... There are lots of shared use paths, and lots
of unlabelled paths. I basically want the shared use paths to be tagged as
cycleways (because that's the function they serve), and *some* of the
unlabelled paths to be
Lightbulb goes off.
Now I get it.
highway=cycleway means highway=path, bicycle=designated.
bicycle=designated means bicycles are explicitly allowed (generally, by
signage)
highway=footway means highway=path, foot=designated
therefore, highway=footway, bicycle=designated means
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote:
On 1/5/10 10:01 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Trouble is, current usage (and renderer support) treats highway=path
very differently from highway=footway. It seems to mean walking
track with unmade surface.
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote:
within the US, i am increasingly seeing things that might once have just
been called bike paths
that are now designated as multi use trails, e.g. the Mohawk Hudson Bike
Path here in Albany
has become the
34 matches
Mail list logo
