Works for me
Cheers
Andy
-Original Message-
From: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net]
Sent: 28 November 2011 17:11
To: talk-gb OSM List (E-mail)
Subject: [Talk-GB] LCN - Local Cycle Network
Hello all,
We seem to be ending up with wildly conflicting use of
In London there's also the problem that the Cycle SuperHighways and LCN are
both tagged the same, despite being rather different beasts.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Thinking about it, I reckon official/operator/signposted tags on the
relation are a better approach, since the matter is rarely quite as yes/no
as defining a separate network. Might have to break some relations into
sections, to reflect the officialness and signpostedness of different
sections,
This sounds a bit like yes it is/oh no it isn't tags. If it's not an
actual cycle route, then it shouldn't be otherwise identically tagged
but just with additional official=no or operator=Some Wishful
Thinkers. I think your earlier suggestion of tagging them separately
to lcn/ncn/rcn would be
On 29 November 2011 09:17, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote:
In London there's also the problem that the Cycle SuperHighways and LCN are
both tagged the same, despite being rather different beasts.
In what way? They are both signed cycle routes covering a reasonably
local
I went to the OSM-GB (http://osmgb.org.uk) presentation at Geomob and first of
all I’d like to say that I’m interested in the initiative and wish it well.
A first place to look for database checks would be the checks that the
existing quality assurance tools
On 28/11/2011 18:37, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
(for example, I'm group co-ordinator for North West Oxfordshire
and have tagged those routes in our area which are under discussion
with local councils and are likely to open in the next few years)
What tags did you use?
Dave F.
7 matches
Mail list logo
