Re: [talk-au] Path discussion tagging guidelines

That makes sense, Andrew, but note that some issue reporting systems in editors might flag that as a tagging mistake that needs fixing. I believe one of the tools in iD will recommend removing what it considers to be unnecessarily duplicated information. Just a heads up, not a criticism :)

Re: [talk-au] Path discussion tagging guidelines

On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 20:03, wrote: > The only other difference was a general ambivalence on how shared paths > are tagged. The wiki says highway=cycleway & foot=designated, people here > were also happy with highway=footway & bicycle=designated. Two sides of the > same coin I guess, and

Re: [talk-au] Path discussion tagging guidelines

The only other difference was a general ambivalence on how shared paths are tagged. The wiki says highway=cycleway & foot=designated, people here were also happy with highway=footway & bicycle=designated. Two sides of the same coin I guess, and depends on which camp you're in.  Personally,

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

Yes Andrew I would be happy to work with you. We are still under a 15km limit, probably going to a 25km limit in 2 weeks. I can get to maybe half of the area now for ground truthing and probably 90% in 2 weeks. Tony I guess there would be nearly 0% chance that you would be able to cleanly

Re: [talk-au] Path discussion tagging guidelines

I'd say it does, except I think there was a desire not to universally tag bicycle=yes/no on footway, given it's broadly redundant information. This should be derived from tags applied at a State level. But retaining bicycle=no if there was an explicit sign forbidding cycling. The only other

[talk-au] Path discussion tagging guidelines

Hi all, There's been great discussion over the past few weeks about cycling and/or footpath tagging. Personally, it's been hard to keep up with all the messages. Does the tagging guidelines wiki reflect a summary of what has recently been discussed?

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

Hi as you have been discussing reverting changesets, I thought I should mention that Ilya Zverev’s Simple Reverter seems to be out of action at present https://github.com/Zverik/simple-revert/issues/19 This discussion regarding 'Cycling on

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

On Oct 12, 2021, at 11:08 PM, Adam Horan wrote: > Is this something that could be pushed to maproulette? Not as reversions, but > tasks to validate or update OSM entries that match a pattern - eg edited by > this user and now has bicycle=no, highway=footway etc? I don’t want to say “absolute

Re: [talk-au] Cycling on Victorian paths

Is this something that could be pushed to maproulette? Not as reversions, but tasks to validate or update OSM entries that match a pattern - eg edited by this user and now has bicycle=no, highway=footway etc? On Wed, 13 Oct 2021 at 16:56, Andrew Harvey wrote: > I guess there would be nearly 0%