Not far from here, there is a network of designated bicycle/multiuse trails.
There are corresponding signs.
These trails happen to be MTB trails. Not all bicycles are road bicycles,
sorry for starting the obvious.
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.comwrote:
In bare bones basic, Steve, are you for or against using highway =
cycleway for officially marked cycleways only? That's what I would
like to
2010/1/8 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com
So the 22,000 highway=cycleway in the UK all need to be changed.
Unfortunately, UK mappers don't seem to agree with this.
well, I'm pretty sure if you'd start today you would have changed them
within some weeks, but still mainly
2010/1/8 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
2010/1/8 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com
So the 22,000 highway=cycleway in the UK all need to be changed.
Unfortunately, UK mappers don't seem to agree with this.
If you are sure that there is zero official cycleways,
2010/1/7 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Tag highway = cycleway for official cycleways and bicycle=yes if it's
allowed to have bicycles on footpaths somewhere. End of story. Yes, in
Heh, that makes about three
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, Steve Bennett wrote:
The asymmetry arises from the requirements of the modes of transport:
anything that a bike can ride on, a pedestrian can walk on - but not vice
versa.
except for the poor germans, who must not walk on a cycleway
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
except for the poor germans, who must not walk on a cycleway
and the poor Austrians, Swiss, Turkish
and the poor Belarus, Belgians, Brazilians, French, Dutch if it is not
also designated for pedestrians or an alternative for
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Steve Bennett
Is it old as in, obsolete? Should we make an Australian entry, or is it no
longer relevant?
It is an old page because designation and default access is an old
topic and there is no black and white answer. In some countries,
when you tag a
2010/1/6 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
It is an old page because designation and default access is an old
topic and there is no black and white answer. In some countries,
when you tag a cycleway, it is obviously not allowed
Hi!
Am 06.01.2010 07:15, schrieb Steve Bennett:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net
The asymmetry arises from the requirements of the modes of transport:
anything that a bike can ride on, a pedestrian can walk on - but not
vice versa.
Anyway, with the
On 01/06/2010 07:10 AM, Nop wrote:
No it does not. This equality was originally intended in the path
proposal, but there is also a large fraction of mappers who use it
differently. Their argumentation is like this:
- designated means there is a sign
- in my country, when there is a sign,
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
The biggest problem I can see at the moment is I really don't want to tag
anything bicycle=designated unless I'm certain it really *is* designated
that way (which I can't do from aerial photography), but I *do* want to
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Tag highway = cycleway for official cycleways and bicycle=yes if it's
allowed to have bicycles on footpaths somewhere. End of story. Yes, in
Heh, that makes about three people with very simple takes on the matter -
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 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
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
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 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
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 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
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 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
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Err no. highway=cycleway indicates that the used way is mainly or
exclusively for bicycles; the route is designated for bicycles
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway)
After much thought, I think
Hi!
Am 04.01.2010 13:42, schrieb Steve Bennett:
Things that make a cycleway well suited:
- good surface: smooth asphalt is better than compacted gravel
- smoothness: few bumps such as tree roots or kerbs
- gentle curves: few sharp turns
- signs or legislation giving priority to bicycles
-
Steve Bennett wrote:
After much thought, I think I've finally decided that the definition I would
like for cycleway would be something like the way is especially well suited
to use by bicycles.
This definition applies to many ways that also fulfil definitions for
other highway values (e.g.
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Alex Mauer wrote:
Your criteria for a “well-suited” cycle way are inapplicable to many
cycleways. One big example is mountain bike trails, which fail nearly
all of them: good surface, smoothness, gentle curves, signs giving
priority to bicycles, and possibly navigability.
2010/1/4 Liz ed...@billiau.net
I don't see a mountain bike track as equivalent to a cycleway.
I would specifically exclude a MTB track from cycleway
+1, still I agree with most of the comments above that the proposed change
of the definition would not improve the situation.
cheers,
Martin
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
If it's a short path between two buildings or
something, I wouldn't call that especially suitable for cycling.
Others might. There is a lot of fuzzy area here. This is a problem.
It's called unverifiability.
And to
36 matches
Mail list logo
