: Chris Hill [mailto:chillly...@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 28 March 2009 12:30
To: Stephen Hope; talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Cyclists are often going to be asked to give way to pedestrians. Cycle
routes often (usually) allow pedestrian access too. I would tag
I think internationally it is quite rare for cyclists to have priority over
pedestrians on cycleways (maybe only Germany). I remember wandering onto
the cyclist half of a pavement/sidewalk in Germany, and eventually noticing
that someone was riding behind me, repeatedly ringing their bell to get
Stephen Hope wrote:
OK, so while we're talking about this, there are a number of paths
near me. Nice smooth concrete, about 2m wide. They run through parks,
and there are signs on the park as a whole that say No motorised
vehicles. These paths are marked with a sign that has a pedestrian
Hatto von Hatzfeld wrote:
Russ Nelson wrote:
On Mar 28, 2009, at 1:50 AM, Stephen Hope wrote:
I don't feel right calling it a cycleway if they
have to give way to other users.
Cyclists ALWAYS have to give way to other users. It's a simple matter
of the laws of physics.
At least here
-Original Message-
From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-
boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Mike Harris
Sent: 28 March 2009 15:05
To: 'Chris Hill'; 'Stephen Hope'; talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
By the way - in England
: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
-Original Message-
From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-
boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Mike Harris
Sent: 28 March 2009 15:05
To: 'Chris Hill'; 'Stephen Hope'; talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
On Mar 28, 2009, at 1:50 AM, Stephen Hope wrote:
I don't feel right calling it a cycleway if they
have to give way to other users.
Cyclists ALWAYS have to give way to other users. It's a simple matter
of the laws of physics. But maybe there are dedicated cycleways in
some places where
: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
OK, so while we're talking about this, there are a number of paths
near me. Nice smooth concrete, about 2m wide. They run through parks,
and there are signs on the park as a whole that say No motorised
vehicles. These paths are marked with a sign that has
Russ Nelson wrote:
On Mar 28, 2009, at 1:50 AM, Stephen Hope wrote:
I don't feel right calling it a cycleway if they
have to give way to other users.
Cyclists ALWAYS have to give way to other users. It's a simple matter
of the laws of physics.
At least here in Germany there are
Hill [mailto:chillly...@yahoo.co.uk]
Sent: 28 March 2009 12:30
To: Stephen Hope; talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Cyclists are often going to be asked to give way to pedestrians. Cycle routes
often (usually) allow pedestrian access too. I would tag
Map Features says that highway=cycleway should be used for ways that are
mainly/exclusively for bicycles. Does that mean that all those cycleways in
the Netherlands have (implicit) footways alongside, or that there are so few
pedestrians that the way can be regarded as mainly for bicycles, or that
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:25 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.comwrote:
On 26/03/2009 17:14, Richard Mann wrote:
highway=cycleway+designation=public_bridleway does the job with the
minimum of fuss.
and requires us either to change the renderers or mislead horse riders.
David
I
Richard Mann wrote:
Map Features says that highway=cycleway should be used for ways that are
mainly/exclusively for bicycles. Does that mean that all those cycleways in
the Netherlands have (implicit) footways alongside, or that there are so few
pedestrians that the way can be regarded as
Richard Mann wrote:
Map Features says that highway=cycleway should be used for ways that
are mainly/exclusively for bicycles.
Map Features is wrong. :)
IIRC some divvy inserted this sentence a good while after people had got
accustomed to using highway=cycleway for shared-use paths.
cheers
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Richard Mann wrote:
Map Features says that highway=cycleway should be used for ways that
are mainly/exclusively for bicycles.
Map Features is wrong. :)
So you're saying that highway=cycleway is not intended for ways which
are for bicycles? What an ... interesting
So you're saying that highway=cycleway is not intended for ways
which
are for bicycles? What an ... interesting interpretation!
I think mainly/exclusively may overstress the exclusively bit. I
think generally if a bicycle and a pedestrian can use a way, but
cars can't then highway=cycleway
Ed Loach wrote:
So you're saying that highway=cycleway is not intended for ways
which
are for bicycles? What an ... interesting interpretation!
I think mainly/exclusively may overstress the exclusively bit.
In a few jurisdictions and a few cases, they're exclusive; in most
jurisdictions
I see
highway=path as a handy shortcut like highway=road for tagging
something until a 'proper' tag can be assigned, though I realise not
everyone will agree...
Yeah, I find highway=path a good permanent shortcut for
highway=cycleway+foot=yes+bicycle=yes without having to guess if
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:53 AM, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote:
So you're saying that highway=cycleway is not intended for ways
which
are for bicycles? What an ... interesting interpretation!
I think mainly/exclusively may overstress the exclusively bit. I
think generally if a bicycle
Oh, good grief.
While *that*'s all happening downthread, perhaps the people who've
actually been out mapping the area that's sparked off this storm of
nonsense can come to some form of rough consensus and useful maps (to
paraphrase).
I'll start.
Richard Mann wrote:
Why do I think
Andrew Chadwick wrote:
So let it be a cycleway, tagged designation=public_bridleway. Surface
I guess we can use the best (vehicular) value for it: paved,
probably. Acceptable?
*applauds*
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Alex Mauer wrote:
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Map Features says that highway=cycleway should be used for ways that
are mainly/exclusively for bicycles.
Map Features is wrong. :)
So you're saying that highway=cycleway is not intended for ways
which are for bicycles?
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 04:21:47PM +0100, sly (sylvain letuffe) wrote:
Yeah, I find highway=path a good permanent shortcut for
highway=cycleway+foot=yes+bicycle=yes without having to guess if
highway=footway isn't more clever because BOTH are to go on that... path
Maybe we should just call
We all contribute in our own way. For instance I found 1467 instances of
snowmobile=no in Germany in tagwatch. It isn't clear whether each of those
had the proper No Snowmobiles sign (the wiki seems to be a bit vague on the
criteria) :)
Richard (West Oxford)
Richard Mann wrote:
We all contribute in our own way. For instance I found 1467 instances of
snowmobile=no in Germany in tagwatch. It isn't clear whether each of those
had the proper No Snowmobiles sign (the wiki seems to be a bit vague on the
criteria) :)
Even aside from signs it's hard to
OK, so while we're talking about this, there are a number of paths
near me. Nice smooth concrete, about 2m wide. They run through parks,
and there are signs on the park as a whole that say No motorised
vehicles. These paths are marked with a sign that has a pedestrian
and a bicycle, and another
: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com]
Sent: 24 March 2009 13:18
To: osm
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Mike asked for examples of basic physical status.
1) Path - poorly-defined path (either because of low usage, or because
there's no advantage in taking any
On 26/03/2009 09:29, Mike Harris wrote:
Richard
Thanks for this ... very helpful - a few comments -
1. Path: I would prefer to use highway=footway for a path that has
(almost always illegally) not been reinstated across a ploughed field IF
...
I think by trying to switch the
-Original Message-
From: David Earl [mailto:da...@frankieandshadow.com]
Sent: 26 March 2009 09:48
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
On 26/03/2009 09:29, Mike Harris wrote:
Richard
Thanks for this ... very helpful - a few comments -
1. Path: I
Before we all get too depressed, I think I agree with both of you (Dave /
Mike) that any changes to tagging should be backwardly-compatible, as far as
practical (or at least minimise the wrongness if the old tagging is
unchanged).
But we also need a scheme that is simple, effective and shows
On 26/03/2009 15:35, Richard Mann wrote:
Before we all get too depressed, I think I agree with both of you (Dave
/ Mike) that any changes to tagging should be backwardly-compatible, as
far as practical (or at least minimise the wrongness if the old
tagging is unchanged).
But we also
On Thursday 26 March 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
I thought a quick tagwatch of footway/path/bridleway/cycleway might
be pertinent.
Europe: footway 556k - cycleway 166k - path 66k - bridleway 11k
Germany: footway 268k - cycleway 57k - path 45k - bridleway 1k
Netherlands: footway 19k - cycleway
Richard Mann wrote:
Only the British
use bridleway. The Dutch have markedly few footways (which probably
indicates cycleway is being used quite loosely).
My recollection of both urban and rural bits of the Netherlands is that
there actually are fewer footways than cycleways - I've had a
On 26/03/2009 17:14, Richard Mann wrote:
highway=cycleway+designation=public_bridleway does the job with the
minimum of fuss.
and requires us either to change the renderers or mislead horse riders.
David
___
talk mailing list
I think it is perfectly obvious in the UK, it's a cycleway if
it has the
blue cycle sign indicating that a surface is permitted for
cycling when
it otherwise not be.
My highway code defines that sign with a round background as Route
to be used by pedal cycles only - so I'd have thought
_
From: Richard Mann [mailto:richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com]
Sent: 23 March 2009 18:14
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Tagging is there to allow people who haven't been there to figure out what
is there.
highway=path just exports the problem
Mike asked for examples of basic physical status.
1) Path - poorly-defined path (either because of low usage, or because
there's no advantage in taking any particular line, or because someone's
ploughed it)
2) Footway - well-defined, but not suitable for horses, due to accesses
(stiles / kissing
Note that Richard's is not a definitive answer (not that this one is
either). My own interpretation is:
1. path: a route, 2-4 meters wide, possibly paved, possibly with a
slightly wider shoulder. Too confined or narrow for a car to navigate
safely, especially if there are other people using it
On 23/03/2009 15:57, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Andrew Chadwick wrote:
In this case, Richard's right in that it's an old bridleway still
used by horses for field access. But it's also been half-surfaced
nicely for bicycle use, and has blue low-flying-bicycles signs
along it. And a sign
David Earl wrote:
The problem marking it as cycleway now is that in the UK road
bridleway cycleway footway loosely speaking. Unless there is
evidence to the contrary, cycles can use bridleways, but horses can't
use cycleways.
Sort of. There are actually two fairly important exceptions to
David Earl wrote:
On 23/03/2009 15:57, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Andrew Chadwick wrote:
But it [...] has blue low-flying-bicycles signs
If/when it is signed as NCN57, then it will have a cycleway sign as
evidence on the ground. In the meantime it quacks like a bridleway, so
surely it ought
...@frankieandshadow.com]
Sent: 23 March 2009 14:26
To: osm
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
On 23/03/2009 14:18, Richard Mann wrote:
OK. So I get fed up because one of these OSM types insists on
retagging something that I think is a cycleway as a bridleway just
because it's got a sign.
I
16:40
To: David Earl
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
David Earl wrote:
The problem marking it as cycleway now is that in the UK road
bridleway cycleway footway loosely speaking. Unless there is
evidence to the contrary, cycles can use bridleways
@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] highway=cyclefootway
Andrew Chadwick wrote:
In this case, Richard's right in that it's an old bridleway still used
by horses for field access. But it's also been half-surfaced nicely
for bicycle use, and has blue low-flying-bicycles signs along
On 23/03/2009 19:41, Mike Harris wrote:
I agree with Richard and also note his careful and correct use of the term
cycle track (which is defined) rather than cycleway (which is used much
more widely and is not defined).
Cycle track is indeed a defined term in the UK. But there are almost
none
45 matches
Mail list logo
