Mike Harris wrote:
Be careful with dogging - it has a quite different meaning in British
English (;) - on the other hand, I think you did mention it was in Oregon,
so maybe ...
I wasn't entirely unaware of the connotation... it does successfully
screw over cycle traffic, especially if they
: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
I'm one of the people mapping paths (since March) who scans this list, and I
have to say that I'm confused. Although part of that may be because I'm new
to OSM and not just to the matter of how to deal with tagging and rendering
things. And part
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Hillsman, Edward hills...@cutr.usf.edu wrote:
I assume that highway=cycleway is a path developed outside a road
right-of-way, primarily for cycling (and the topic that you have been
discussing in this thread). The illustration on the Map Features page lacks
@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Richard Mann wrote:
It comes down to what you think is meant by highway=cycleway. If you
think that it means a cycle superhighway, then obviously you don't
want to apply that to a shared-with-pedestrians route.
Depends
: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org]
Sent: 30 April 2009 22:54
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Jacek Konieczny wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini wrote:
If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle
About 14000 of the 14990 appear to be using highway=path for woodland paths,
in Germany, and without designated access tags. The punters appear to want
something that doesn't show up as a footway/cycleway.
Richard
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
On
option!
Mike Harris
_
From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com]
Sent: 01 May 2009 13:15
To: Andy Allan
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
About 14000 of the 14990 appear to be using highway=path
that
needs to be adjusted - not the data!
Mike Harris
_
From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com]
Sent: 29 April 2009 21:10
To: Marc Schütz
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Why not tag it as a cycleway
2009/4/30 Mike Harris mik...@googlemail.com:
At the risk of reopening earlier very lengthy discussions - this suggestion
seems to me to be an unnecessary misuse of the tag highway=cycleway which
has an accepted and fairly well agreed meaning. It also seems to be a prima
facie case of tagging
There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go
on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are
designed and designated for bicycles.
For example in our local park bikes can go on all the paths, but there
are some specific divided cycle paths too. (We
Risk?!
Misuse how?
Dave
My idea:
highway=cycleway OR (highway=footway,bicycle=permissive) don't care which
(so will be picked up by bike-orientated maps)
*and*
foot=designated
designation=public_footpath
so that foot orientated renderers like Freemap will pick it up as a public
right of
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:36:43AM +0100, James Stewart wrote:
There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go
on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are
designed and designated for bicycles.
Sure.
For example in our local park bikes can go on
Jacek Konieczny schrieb:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:36:43AM +0100, James Stewart wrote:
There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go
on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are
designed and designated for bicycles.
Sure.
For
It comes down to what you think is meant by highway=cycleway. If you think
that it means a cycle superhighway, then obviously you don't want to apply
that to a shared-with-pedestrians route. But cycle superhighways are pretty
rare, and highway=cycleway is used much more widely than that. I've come
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini wrote:
If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you
tag them both as designated?
highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway
+bicycle=designated or cycleway+foot=desiganted)
I do that, when
Richard Mann wrote:
... I've come to the view that cycleway should be used
if someone's gone to the trouble to make it good enough to cycle on, and
nobody's obviously objecting.
I'd agree with that. As a non-cyclist I don't feel somehow
discriminated against because somewhere that I walk
I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer,
especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used (for raw paths as
you describe them). The dark grey dashed lines in Mapnik seem a good
starting point.
If path was rendered then the problem kinda goes away - use
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer,
especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used
Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being
full ack
some tags are too confusing ...
on a lighter note: from tagwatch
typo or protest against a very_horrible tag ;-)
smoothmess horrible (4), impassable (1)
On 30 Apr 2009, at 8:59 , Andy Allan wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann
On Thursday 30 April 2009, Andy Allan wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map
layer, especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used
Every time it gets
2009/4/30, Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com:
Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being
used to me. And I'm mightily concerned that the 10 people discussing
it on these lists might be in no way representative of the 14,990
people who are mapping paths and aren't
Fully agree - and this seems to be in the spirit of most current practice
...
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: James Stewart [mailto:j.k.stew...@ed.ac.uk]
Sent: 30 April 2009 11:37
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
to avoid possible future confusion?
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Mario Salvini [mailto:salv...@t-online.de]
Sent: 30 April 2009 12:10
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
Jacek Konieczny schrieb:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:36
: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:36:43AM +0100, James Stewart wrote:
There are lots of paths that are primarily footpaths, but bikes can go
on them. I think that cycleway is best kept for paths that are
designed and designated for bicycles.
Sure
Mike Harris
-Original Message-
From: Andy Allan [mailto:gravityst...@gmail.com]
Sent: 30 April 2009 17:00
To: Richard Mann
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf
:10
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer,
especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used (for raw paths as
you describe them). The dark grey dashed lines
Message-
From: Ben Laenen [mailto:benlae...@gmail.com]
Sent: 30 April 2009 17:21
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
On Thursday 30 April 2009, Andy Allan wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf
.
Ed Hillsman
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:59:50 +0100, Andy Allen
gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Rendering of footways with bicycle=yes
To: Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Message-ID
Richard Mann wrote:
Why not tag it as a cycleway? Then it will display as a cycleway. How is
it different from anything else that might be tagged as a cycleway?
At least when I'm trying to decide, I ask two questions: 1) Does it
allow bicycles, and 2) Is it wide enough for two cyclists going
Richard Mann wrote:
It comes down to what you think is meant by highway=cycleway. If you
think that it means a cycle superhighway, then obviously you don't want
to apply that to a shared-with-pedestrians route.
Depends on jurisdiction, of course. One problem OSM has with handling
Oregon and
Jacek Konieczny wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 01:10:13PM +0200, Mario Salvini wrote:
If such paths are designated for foot ans bicyle as well, why don't you
tag them both as designated?
highway=path foot=designated bicycle=designated ( or footway
+bicycle=designated or
Right now, ways highway=footway or highway=path,foot=designated where riding a
bicycle is allowed with bicycle={yes,designated} are rendered as normal
footways, so there is no way to see that they are open for bikes.
Is there a chance this could be shown on Mapnik, or at least on the cyclemap?
Why not tag it as a cycleway? Then it will display as a cycleway. How is it
different from anything else that might be tagged as a cycleway?
Richard
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net wrote:
Right now, ways highway=footway or highway=path,foot=designated where
33 matches
Mail list logo
