Re: [talk-au] HighRouleur edits

I think that unless there is explicit signage forbidding bicycles, the ways should be constructed to permit bicycles (particularly if usage of bicycles on that path is common). In other words, use highway=path (always my preferred), or if you must use highway=footway, add bicycle=yes. Ian

Re: [talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

Thanks for the tip about the "change" tag. So here is what I've done - does it sound right? - in the section where the slip lane joins the 2-lane through road (where lanes=3), I have added: "change:lanes=not_right|not_left| " (this hopefully means that the left hand lane cannot change

[talk-au] "Don't split ways if there is no physical separation"

This query was triggered by the following comment in another thread, but I'll start a new thread so as not to distract the original. " 'Don't split ways if there is no physical separation' is one of the core tenets of highway mapping in OSM." My query is about how to correctly map an

Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 10:32:26 +1100 > From: "Phil Wyatt" > To: , > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS) > Message-ID: <004d01d81ed6$7979f520$6c6ddf60$@wyatt-family.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hi Ian and Thorsten, > > I was also

Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging

> Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 01:11:54 +1000 > From: > To: > Subject: Re: [talk-au] OpenStreetMap Wiki page Australian Tagging > Guidelines has been changed by Aaronsta > Message-ID: <045901d81e90$8c77e060$a567a120$@thorsten.engler.id.au> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > >

Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

Message: 2 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 10:26:38 +1100 From: "Phil Wyatt" mailto:p...@wyatt-family.com> > To: mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] Aust. Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS) Message-ID: <007601d81e0c$7f095af0$7d1c10d0$@wyatt-family.com

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking

>> I think the AWTGS is a reasonable starting point for a trail/track difficulty scale that's relevant to Australia. >> However, I wasn't clear whether Grade 5 was supposed to cover everything above Grade 4, or whether there were things harder than Grade 5. >> If the former, I'd think there

Re: [talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

If we agree that the Australian Walking Track Grading System is worth tagging, the next question is how to tag it? The couple I have tagged, I just did "awtgs=" I heard back from the German guy who deleted my tags (he was apologetic) and he said he thought it was a simple misspelling of a tag

[talk-au] Deletion of walking tracks/paths

I strongly prefer highway=path over highway=footway. Most "paths" that get tagged as footways are not signed to say that bicycles are NOT permitted - hence bicycles ARE permitted. Hence, if a path is tagged as a footway, you then need to go and add a 2nd tag "bicycle=yes" - otherwise routers

[talk-au] sac_scale [Was: Deletion of walking tracks/paths]

I think we should be considering the Australian Walking Track Grading System. It seems to have been defined by the Victorians (Forest Fire Management - https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/recreational-activities/walking-and-camping/austr alian-walking-track-grading-system). The AWTGS defines 5 track

[talk-au] : Re: "Removing closed or illegal trails."

Personally, I'm not too fussed about mapping to suit trail bikes in the bush - they go anywhere they feel like anyway :-) The main advantage of mapping it as a path is that 4WDs won't get routed down them. However, while the OSM definition for path does include the words " and not intended for

Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang National Park)

I've always mapped a track that's not wide-enough for a vehicle as a path. Ian Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2021 10:19:36 +1100 From: "EON4wd" mailto:i...@eon4wd.com.au> > To: mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [talk-au] "Removing closed or illegal trails." (in Nerang

[talk-au] Tagging hiking path difficulty - Australian Walking Track Grading System (AWTGS)

I'm unsure in how to apply the AWTGS to walking/hiking paths. I followed through a very long OSM discussion thread from 2020, but didn't see any resolution(I don't think the discussion was Australian specific) What are others doing ? Ian ___

Re: [talk-au] Editing road geometry Australia

I also agree with the Telenav approach for the WA intersection (the other is unnecessarily complicated). Ian ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Sidewalk vs Footpath?

As much as it irks me to have Americanisms creep into our language (and it irks me a great deal!), I agree with you - sidewalk is more definitive. -- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 20:57:05 +1000 From: Andrew Harvey To:

Re: [talk-au] correct mapping of overtaking lanes

Thanks to Phil & Marc (whose replies are below). I finally got back to having a look at this after gathering some more data of lanes to be mapped. The "overtaking" key seems only applicable to 2 lane roads (one each direction) - is that correct ? The "change" key looks very promising, but the

Re: [talk-au] Small culverts/bridges in bushland

-- >> > I have been “guilty” of adding small fords and culverts on bush tracks > because JOSM gives me an error message if you have a waterway crossing a way > without some sort of bridge, Ford, etc - and I try to avoid doing

[talk-au] correct mapping of overtaking lanes

Can someone point me to some examples of the correct method of mapping overtaking lanes on country highways? I need examples for where it is both permissible and not permissible for the contrary direction to use the overtaking lane. Thanks Ian