Mike Harris wrote:
Oh dear - and I thought this was going to be simple! We're back to the
confusion and overlap between the various keys and their values. If the
mode_of_transport=yes/no tags have the same implications as the access= tags
then do we need both?
Yes. Access= sets the default,
kaerast wrote:
Claudius wrote:
Down-grade them to grade4 or grade5. It's not your job to fix the
router's routing in the data.
The wiki suggests that the track grades are for surface type rather than
usability. Yet there does also exist surface=* so I'm not sure. The
grades sound
Hi,
I am currently mapping a village where there are a number tracks which
whilst they should be tagged tracktype=grade3 are so rough you really
wouldn't want to drive down them. Many wouldn't want to walk down them
either. They are rough enough that I previously hadn't bothered to map
Am 20.04.2009 14:54, kaerast:
Hi,
I am currently mapping a village where there are a number tracks which
whilst they should be tagged tracktype=grade3 are so rough you really
wouldn't want to drive down them. Many wouldn't want to walk down them
either. They are rough enough that I
@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [OSM-talk] Rough Tracks
Hi,
I am currently mapping a village where there are a number tracks which
whilst they should be tagged tracktype=grade3 are so rough you really
wouldn't want to drive down them. Many wouldn't want to walk down them
either. They are rough enough that I
Mike wrote:
How about simply using motorcar=no, foot=yes, etc. - I don't
see these as
having the same implications as the access= tags.
You might not, but the wiki (at least currently - you know how these
things can change g) suggests otherwise. From
...@loach.me.uk]
Sent: 20 April 2009 16:44
To: 'Mike Harris'
Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Rough Tracks
Mike wrote:
How about simply using motorcar=no, foot=yes, etc. - I don't see these
as having the same implications as the access= tags.
You might not, but the wiki
Claudius wrote:
Down-grade them to grade4 or grade5. It's not your job to fix the
router's routing in the data.
The wiki suggests that the track grades are for surface type rather than
usability. Yet there does also exist surface=* so I'm not sure. The
grades sound like they should be
Hi,
I used grade5 or grade4 in this case, depending how bad the whole is.
The surface has been inserted far later and seems me redundant and less
usable for routing with weighting.
regards
Pierre-André
kaerast wrote:
Claudius wrote:
Down-grade them to grade4 or grade5. It's not your job to
Hi,
kaerast wrote:
The wiki suggests that the track grades are for surface type rather than
usability.
Call me naive but for me there is a very strong correlation between the two.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33
10 matches
Mail list logo
