Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 83

2014-12-28 Thread Ulrich Lamm 

Am 28.12.2014 um 20:42 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org:

 Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2014 19:22:47 +0100
 From: Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com
 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
   tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Crowded links between carriageway and
   cycletrack
 Message-ID:
   caldvra6wqnl2epddung9dbqev2oxvh21pmzro6fcrgeiipq...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
 
 It is better to map all existing connections between road and cycleway
 rather than add this tag
In areas with houses dwelt by one or two families, often there is such a 
traverse link every fifteen meters
 (too complicated, anyway it will be not supported by routers).
If this tag tells the router, please consider the adjacent carraigeway,too, 
why do you think, routers won't understand that. 
Routers also find a house next to the roadline.
 
 2014-12-28 18:29 GMT+01:00 Ulrich Lamm ulamm.b...@t-online.de:
 
 Hi mapping and cycling friends,
 
 I have suggested an overall parameter for separately drawn cycletracks, to
 record crowded links between roadside cycletrack and carriageway:
 
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Traverse_link
 

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

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 63, Issue 83

2014-12-28 Thread Ulrich Lamm 

Am 28.12.2014 um 20:42 schrieb tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org:

 From: Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com
 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
   tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Shared foot- and cycletracks
 Message-ID:
   caldvra7thqnf07yier7um5g7oc3wwwxtdkf-bdkn67gcd8t...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
 
 Please, stop proposing tags conflicting with widely used ones.
Since 2008/2008, there is a coexistence 
of highway=footway with highway=path + foot=designated
and of highway=cycleway with highway=path + bicycle=designated.
Why not also a coexistence 
of highway=foot_cycleway with highway=path + foot=designated + 
bicycle=designated.

I think, we have to map many features, but the simpler the lists of tags we 
produce that way, the better and the easier is our mapping.
 
 Also, your example with Poland is incorrect (pedestrians have priority over
 cyclists).
The regulation I know from Germany is that the cyclists mustn't urge the 
pedestrians, but the pedestrians have to let the cyclists pass.
It is the same regulation as between cars and cyclists on a shared lane in USA 
or Canada 
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_lane_marking
and the linked sources: 
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part9/part9c.htm (Manual on Uniform Traffic 
Control Devices, 2009 Edition Chapter 9C. Markings)→ scroll to Section 9C.07 
Shared Lane Marking
http://www.thunderbay.ca/Assets/Living/Active+Transportation/docs/Bike+Lanes+Shared+Lanes+Pamphlet.pdf

Except of the right of the pedestrians to use the whole track and to go two by 
two or three by three, that is even same relation like between cars and 
cyclists on normal streets.

If the regulation in Poland is different, please tell me.

(P.S. You might also explain matter with the two different layouts of  Polish 
sign C-13-16) 



 
 2014-12-28 18:35 GMT+01:00 Ulrich Lamm ulamm.b...@t-online.de:
 
 Hi mapping and cycling friends,
 
 I have suggested a special highway-class for the slim tagging of this very
 common kind of cycling facilities that up to now affords a combination of
 four tags.
 
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/foot_cycleway

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