Re: [Talk-GB] FWD: Re: House number ranges that are only odd or even

Dec 10, 2020, 21:51 by sk53@gmail.com: > However, I would regard > the Dutch > > & Polish > communities approach of adding individual > nodes for each address in the building irrespective of the actual address > position outline

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 12:52 PM Martin Wynne wrote: > > Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually banned? > > I don’t know the legal basis, but according to OSM there are plenty of cycleways or roads from which pedestrians are banned in London:

Re: [Talk-GB] FWD: Re: House number ranges that are only odd or even

addr:interpolation used on single buildings has certainly been our standard practice in the East Midlands for 9 or 10 years now. It's now often used in conjunction with addr:flats or addr:unit, but also with addr:housenumber, which I think was the first usage. It was obvious early on that multiple

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

On 10/12/2020 14:08, Tony Shield wrote: /Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually banned? / Unfortunately yes - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/827379295 Quite clear signage - Mapillary -

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

That's weird. Save for some tactile paving what's the difference between North & South? DaveF On 10/12/2020 14:08, Tony Shield wrote: /Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually banned? / Unfortunately yes - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/827379295 Quite clear

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

On 10/12/2020 16:28, Ken Kilfedder wrote: > I think there are enough items that look and act like a cycles-only way to make it worth having a fourth item in your hierarchy- whatever the legal position. But route-finding software needs to know the legal position. Mapping something as

Re: [Talk-GB] FWD: Re: House number ranges that are only odd or even

That JOSM rendering is just a limitation in JOSM's rendering - I'd imagine it was unplanned. I'd be happy to see that second solution (i.e. make clear the interpretation of the tag, for closed ways). I don't necessarily think it needs a proposal/vote but I'd be happy to see it happen! Best Dan

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

Just to add by the way, in a country like netherlands "cycleways" are paved paths dedicated to cycles. You can't walk on there because there are also sidewalks to walk on. E.g.: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pAL4yr927e4/maxresdefault.jpg -- 10 Dec 2020, 14:08 by tonyo...@gmail.com: > > Are there

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

Didn't know this tagging scheme existed actually. Every single path that allows both cycling and walking is tagged as "highway=cycleway", "foot=yes" and "segregated=no" in my area (as well as "footway=sidewalk" sometimes) -- 10 Dec 2020, 12:24 by epicthom...@gmail.com: > I've reached a

[Talk-GB] FWD: Re: House number ranges that are only odd or even

Date: 10 Dec 2020, 18:34 From: ipswichmap...@tutanota.com To: mattatt...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] House number ranges that are only odd or even > This issue also came to my mind. addr:interpolation on a building doesn't > seem appropriate. JOSM, for example, renders it as a dotted line

Re: [Talk-GB] Idea - OSMUK walkers' map application -- -& server

Hi I like the idea. Can it be extended to be a UK based map which is has greater prominence to aspects such as the recent discussion about cyclists and paths? Does anyone have an idea of how it could be made to happen - could we (OSM UK) fund and maintain it with commitment for say 2

Re: [Talk-GB] House number ranges that are only odd or even

I use addr:interpolation on single items as in Mat's example, just as much as on an explicit "interpolation way". It seems to me the concept is perfectly adaptable. For example, an address-search-engine should have no trouble digesting these two almost-the-same uses of addr:interpolation. Cheers

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

On 10/12/2020 14:13, John Aldridge wrote: There'd be a whole lot less temptation to tag for the renderer, if the renderers rendered for the tags a bit better! Agreed, and while we are on the subject, please can we have *tracks* rendered on the standard map as a double line? As they are on

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

I believe you're incorrect. Cycleways can be shared use with pedestrians, & almost always are in the UK. Cycleway/footway/path tags are not based on usage figures. Cycleway allows for two modes of transport, footway allows one.  Likewise 'bridleway' allows for three modes -

Re: [Talk-GB] Solar panels on Alvares House in Homerton

I have conducted some more surveys of the area and neither from street level or looking from a neighbouring building am I able to see a play area so it's possible it's a rooftop play area and not accessible by non residents of the building. On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 15:44, Jez Nicholson wrote: > As

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

> ...this distinction doesn't really exist in the UK. The default legal > position for for any public highway in the UK is that any permission for > any class of user also includes permission for any class of user prior > to that in the hierarchy, unless explicitly stated (and signed) >

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

On 10/12/2020 15:39, Phillip Barnett wrote: “ any road that cars can use is also open to cyclists and pedestrians ” Pedestrians? Are you sure about that? Yes, you can walk along country roads that lack pavements, but try that in a town and I’m pretty sure you’d get stopped quite quickly.

Re: [Talk-GB] House number ranges that are only odd or even

Isn't addr:interpolation only for ranges of housenumbers on an interpolation way? In this case the question seems to be about a residential building containing only even numbered units? If you just say addr:housenumber=2-20, it could mean that 19 is included. If you say

Re: [Talk-GB] House number ranges that are only odd or even

On 10/12/2020 15:37, Mat Attlee wrote: Is there a way when specifying a range for addr:housenumber to indicate it's only for even or odd numbers? https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/addr:interpolation#values -- Cheers, Jeremy ___ Talk-GB

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

Following a little research, there was a proposal in the Carto style to do something like my 5-point suggestion. You can read the details here, and contribute (or give the 'thumbs up' upvotes to contributions you like: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1321 ---

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

“ any road that cars can use is also open to cyclists and pedestrians ” Pedestrians? Are you sure about that? Yes, you can walk along country roads that lack pavements, but try that in a town and I’m pretty sure you’d get stopped quite quickly. Sent from my iPhone > On 10 Dec 2020, at 15:21,

[Talk-GB] House number ranges that are only odd or even

Is there a way when specifying a range for addr:housenumber to indicate it's only for even or odd numbers? When walking around my local area I have come across some blocks that will have a sign indicating for example house numbers 1 to 21 odd only. Similarly when there is just one building drawn

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

On Thu, 10 Dec 2020 at 12:42, Ken Kilfedder wrote: > highway=cycleway with nothing to say that foot is allowed - blue dashes as at > present. > highway=footway with nothing to say bicyles are allowed - red dashes as at > present. > highway=cycleway with foot expressly allowed - blue/red dashed

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

> On 10 Dec 2020, at 14:13, John Aldridge wrote: > > On 12/10/2020 12:41 PM, Ken Kilfedder wrote: >> As a break from 'tagging for the renderer', I'd like to see rendering for >> the tags. > > A long standing grump of mine! And mine. I think the CycleMap render has a lot of issues with

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

On 10/12/2020 12:41, Ken Kilfedder wrote: As a break from 'tagging for the renderer', I'd like to see rendering for the tags.  It would save a lot of heartarche if the map on osm.org showed shared-use paths explicitly. I entirely agree! I think the real problem here is that the standard

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

On 12/10/2020 12:41 PM, Ken Kilfedder wrote: As a break from 'tagging for the renderer', I'd like to see rendering for the tags. A long standing grump of mine! We see lots of excellent effort put in to designing tagging schemes which could support a wide variety of applications, but rather

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

/Are there any public cycleways from which pedestrians are actually banned? / Unfortunately yes - https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/827379295 Quite clear signage - Mapillary - https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=53.66933432657343=-2.6290113968031967=17=_ir_HmYAIa4H0rnj1JrO8A=photo // When I

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

My reasons for changing it, is that it is shared use path with a greater number of people of foot than bicycle (about 5:2) Many public bridleways have many more walkers and cyclists using it than actual horse-riders. But are still mapped as bridleways. Map it as a cycleway, unless it is a

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

As a break from 'tagging for the renderer', I'd like to see rendering for the tags. It would save a lot of heartarche if the map on osm.org showed shared-use paths explicitly. Perhaps as follows:- * highway=cycleway with nothing to say that foot is allowed - blue dashes as at present. *

Re: [Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

On 10/12/2020 12:24, Thomas Jarvis wrote: (snipped) I've put this to the Data Working Group, and they have suggested that I ask the community here to see what the consensus is. I don't mind what the outcome is, however I am not satisfied with the sole reason being because it renders

[Talk-GB] Tagging of shared use paths

I've reached a stalemate with another mapper about the tagging of a rural shared use path. He mapped the path initially a few years ago as highway=cycleway and I've recently changed it to highway=path, bicycle=designated & foot=designated (as well as the other tags that apply to it). My reasons