On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 15:36, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> It means JOSM hasn't downloaded all the member ways, in one of the panels
> on the right showing the relation, right clicking download incomplete
> members will fetch them all.
>
Ah, so everything is in fact actually OK, it's just not
On Apr 7, 2022, at 10:36 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> It means JOSM hasn't downloaded all the member ways, in one of the panels on
> the right showing the relation, right clicking download incomplete members
> will fetch them all.
Yes, Graeme, if you see in the bottom left pane of JOSM's
On Apr 7, 2022, at 10:31 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> Well your router would need to look up the specific default whether that's
> something in the routing engine configuration, pulled from the OSM wiki, or
> pulled from the Victoria state relation def:* tags.
Right, I agree: that's part of the
On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 15:31, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> Was going to mention a couple of days ago - it worked!!! :-)
>
> Was able to successfully create my lake with an island in it & have also
> added islands to other lakes already mapped as MP :sunglasses" :-)
>
> So thanks everybody for your
On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 14:53, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 12:50, Andrew Harvey
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I think this is getting too much into mapping regulations, we could just
>> have no bicycle tag and leave it to data consumers to apply the regional
>> defaults.
>>
>
>
Was going to mention a couple of days ago - it worked!!! :-)
Was able to successfully create my lake with an island in it & have also
added islands to other lakes already mapped as MP :sunglasses" :-)
So thanks everybody for your help! :-)
Another question though, thanks.
I'm seeing some
On Apr 7, 2022, at 9:53 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> I think this is getting too much into mapping regulations, we could just have
> no bicycle tag and leave it to data consumers to apply the regional defaults.
>
> What would that do to bike routing?
There is bicycle infrastructure tagging
On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 12:50, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> I think this is getting too much into mapping regulations, we could just
> have no bicycle tag and leave it to data consumers to apply the regional
> defaults.
>
What would that do to bike routing?
Thanks
Graeme
On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 07:37, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 17:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bicycles are allowed on footpaths in Victoria . . .
>>
>
> Which, to me, means that all footpaths should be bike=yes, as "some"
> people are allowed to ride on
On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 at 09:33, Dian Ågesson wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Resurrecting this thread to see if there are any objections to
> implementing the following changes as part of the cleanup:
>
>
> -Removing admin_level=7
>
Was there a resolution for Andrew Davidson's comment about ACT districts
Hey all,
Resurrecting this thread to see if there are any objections to
implementing the following changes as part of the cleanup:
-Removing admin_level=7
-Moving localities to admin_level=9
Dian
On 2021-12-04 22:29, Dian Ågesson wrote:
Hey Andrew,
Forgive my ignorance; how should we
On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 17:54, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bicycles are allowed on footpaths in Victoria . . .
>
Which, to me, means that all footpaths should be bike=yes, as "some" people
are allowed to ride on them, unless they are specifically signed as bike=no.
Thanks
Graeme
Hi Sebastian,
You say "The re-tagging of ways I have been undertaking aligns with
the Australian Tagging guidelines". I think you are referring to the
words "Cycling is not permitted on footpaths in NSW or Vic.,
and highway=footway should be used in general circumstances."
I think you
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
Thanks Andrew. It does appear we are both looking at the same thing through
different lenses.
The re-tagging of ways I have been undertaking aligns with the Australian
Tagging guidelines, hence I’m not exactly clear on the objection as the
guidelines say that highway=footway should generally
Thanks Warin, pedantic mode is appreciated, but what position do you
support? Presumably leave a path as a path and do not change it to a
footway?
Tony
Bicycles are allowed on footpaths in Victoria  . . .
if rider has a medical or other exemption allowing them to ride on the
Hi Tony and Sebastian,
There's a lot to take in here, but it does look like both of you care
deeply about cycle mapping in Melbourne and working with the best
intentions to make OSM data as accurate and complete as possible. You're
both engaging in discussion of the actual changes so to me
I'd hope (no proof!) that the DCS map uses the Geographical Name
Register (GNR) of NSW for the name.
The 'local name' might be just that - used locally.
Both 'names' need to be recorded.
On 7/4/22 09:59, Andrew Harvey wrote:
Hi Sebastian
Thanks for participating in this discussion.
You say "Hence by definition in Victoria, bikes aren't explicitly
permitted without signage".
This is the area where we disagree and I believe you are out of step
with the consensus. There are many places where bikes are implicitly
19 matches
Mail list logo
