[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Objects generating audible cues

[bkil]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Objects_generating_audible_cues
is open for voting now.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 16. Oct 2020, at 10:28, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> Not in cases where 
> (1) highway=cycleway is crossing road where cyclists are obligated to dismount
> (2) highway=footway with bicycle=yes/designated is crossing road where 
> cyclists
> are obligated to dismount


in these cases the cycleway ceases to exist. Or would you say pushing only 
cycleways are ok? highway=cycleway with  bicycle=dismount?


Cheers Martin 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Unverfied Edits, Reverting Tags

[joost schouppe]

Clay,

While I do agree that this person seems to be more interested in "proving
to the world that they are right" than in actually productively working
towards a solution, I do not think this kind of language is welcome in this
forum. OpenStreetMap should be better than that. Consider that people from
quite different backgrounds than your own will be able to read this for
years to come - and it might weigh in to their decision whether or not to
participate.

Best,
Joost

Op ma 12 okt. 2020 om 17:50 schreef Clay Smalley :

> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020, 10:31 AM Hartmut Holzgraefe <
> hartmut.holzgra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2020-10-12 15:51, 80hnhtv4agou--- via Tagging wrote:
>> > DWG and the foundation, are not in the verification and editing
>> > business, so who is ?, under penalty of banning.
>>
>>
>> context?
>>
>
> He got banned for being a dick:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/3979
>
> He's probably just complaining that I'm reverting his edits for a second
> time. It's getting old.
>
> -Clay
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Oct 15, 2020, 22:18 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

>> This  recent wiki change by >> Emvee 
>> >>  is in my view not 
>> helpful, or  even misleading, as it does discourage a wide-spread 
>> tagging  practice (if we like this or not is a different question, but 
>> it's  established tagging, and the wiki is supposed to describe the  
>> establsihed methods of tagging)
>>
>
> The change describes what a router does with bicycle=no on a  node, see > 
> https://github.com/abrensch/brouter/issues/265
>
>
No, you changed documented meaning of tagging scheme in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dcrossing=revision=2043653=2025128

OSM Wiki is not describing only tagging that is supported.

Note that it is fine to describe tagging as problematic, unsupported and having 
a better alternative.


>
> Already discussed elsewhere but having routers ignore bicycle=no  in 
> combination with highway=crossing means that it is more or less  useless 
> as routers are they main data consumers while at the same  time crossing 
> data is far from being complete.
>
>
Any tagging scheme is for some period unsupported, this does not make it 
useless.

And any widely used tagging scheme can be described. As obvious from this 
discussion meaning
of this bicycle=no is clear so I will revert your edits on this page

>
> My take is that it is not a wide-spread tagging practice and it  does not 
> add new information as weather it is a pedestrian issue  can be deduced 
> from the connecting ways.
>
>
Not in cases where 
(1) highway=cycleway is crossing road where cyclists are obligated to dismount
(2) highway=footway with bicycle=yes/designated is crossing road where cyclists
are obligated to dismount
(3)pedestrian only crossing is tagged on road having cycleway on both sides 
(tagged as cycleway:lef/cycleway:right/cycleway:both) 
(or where such road has cycleway at one side, is joined by separately mapped 
cycleway from other side and there is crossing there, but
cyclists must dismount)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 16. Oct 2020, at 00:00, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> Single carriageway, but with a way segment added to the cycleway to carry the 
> signed  `bicycle=dismount` restriction.


at this point there is no shared way anymore, just nearby it is shared, because 
bicycle=dismount is the same as bicycle no, it means pedestrians only.

Ciao Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

[Richard Fairhurst]

Volker Schmidt wrote:
> I don't know what the routers need, to be honest.
> Anyone in the router business listening in on this conversation?

cycle.travel will take account of highway=crossing nodes (e.g. where a cycleway 
crosses a road), and adjust its routing weight accordingly. The adjustment is 
slightly different depending on the type of crossing and the highway= value of 
each connecting way.

It does not take any particular note of =crossing ways, other than to note that 
footway=crossing means that the rider should push.

It does not currently take any account of bicycle=no on a crossing, not least 
because bicycle=no is a very problematic tag - generally bicycle=dismount 
should be used instead, reserving bicycle=no for those circumstances where even 
pushing a bike is not legal (e.g. most public footpaths in England & Wales).

Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Oct 15, 2020, 22:30 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:

>
>
>>> Imagine I would add hgv=no or motorcycle=no tags to  pedestrian 
>>> crossings
>>>
>> Is there a case where hgv use sidewalk together withpedestrians and 
>> cross road using crossing shared with apedestrians?
>>
>> Is there a case of sidewalk where hgv are allowed but oncrossing 
>> with road oneis supposed to walk carrying your
>> vehicle?
>>
>> Is there some existing usage of hgv=noon crossings?
>>
>
> Valid questions, but the exact same questions apply for a  pedestrian way 
> crossing a secondary. On that pedestrian way  cyclists are not allowed so 
> what is the use of adding bicycle=no  to the crossing node?
>
>
I agree that adding bicycle=no on highway=crossing is pointless on footways 
with bicycle=no or
where bicycle=no is implied

It is useful solely if cyclists are allowed on cycleway/footway crossing road 
and are obligated to
dismount if crossing road at that point. (and yes, in most cases, though not 
all, it can be retagged as
access tagging on way)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging