Paul Johnson wrote: > On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 15:25 +0100, Dave F. wrote: > >> Paul Johnson wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 11:30 +0100, Dave F. wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Imagine a map with just the cycleways (a VERY bare map) as some people >>>> seem to want. Imagine trying to follow a cycle route through a big city >>>> using just that information. Any cyclist would be lost within 5 minutes! >>>> >>>> >>> That argument wrongfully assumes all cities suck at providing adequate >>> routes for all commuters, which is demonstratably incorrect for much of >>> the pacific northwest and europe. >>> >>> >>> >> I'm a bit bemused by your reply which seems irrelevant: >> You weren't talking about all commuters, just cyclists. It's you who >> wants all roads other than those for cyclists removed. >> Therefore my previous comments. >> > > No, Weird, you seem to agree with me yet start with No. Anyway... > I was including bicycles as a viable mode of transport while > suggesting cyclists need an equally specialized map to what motorists > have. We all agree on that which is the purpose of the OCM. OCM should indicate roads because cyclist can use them & they're useful to navigate with.
> You think motor vehicle maps show ways not open to motorists > typically? > Yes. My AA road atlas shows both railways & National Trails such as the Ridgeway Path. And even so, as I've said before, just because detail is left of a poor map it doesn't mean we should for OCM. Cheers Dave F. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > newbies mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies > _______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/newbies
