There are signposts on the beach only at the access ways. Makes no sense to
place further signs to follow a stretch of beach, so you wil not find
those.
Trail_visibility: you could add that, but surface=sand on an area of sand
already says it it all. I've suggested this once on the dutch forum,
François,
The discussion about this has also been brought to the forum, here:
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=64825
I'm unsure if it is better to continue it here in the ML, there in the forum,
or in both places...
On 2018-12-20 01:04, François Lacombe wrote:
>
> Le mer. 19
Le mer. 19 déc. 2018 à 22:26, Richard a écrit :
> the OSM tag chain should be imho used only for very common things because
> each member
> of the chain will turn up as a "top level" tag in the database and
> taginfo.
>
We are using such chains in Power, Pipeline and Telecom groups. It works
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 10:27, Sergio Manzi wrote:
> Why don't you use trail_visibility=no on the sections of path which are
> invisible as they are just plain beach? Routing will not be affected (it will
> work...).
I agree. I think trail_visibility=no + surface=sand (or whatever the
beach
Why don't you use trail_visibility=no on the sections of path which are
invisible as they are just plain beach? Routing will not be affected (/it will
work.../).
See: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:trail_visibility
Cheers,
Sergio
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic
About "no visible path": if a hiking route marker points over an area and
another marker is present at the point the route continues, the path may
not be discernable on the ground, but it is there.
Same as foot crossings/bicycle crossings over a road: even if there is
nothing else but lowered
I must admit that I'd prefer to actual mark a path so that it renders as a
route, even though you can walk anywhere between the water & the sand dunes!
The same thing would then apply to those beaches that you can drive on
Thanks
Graeme
___
Tagging
I've used areas in hiking routes. As long as they are not too big, no
problem there, routers do not route over them though. If the area is
bigger, like thee Dutch Nothsea beach, it does not show up great in route
renderings and you have to split up the beach. I decided not to do that,
not until
On 20/12/18 09:09, Peter Elderson wrote:
If you want beaches to route in general, you need to draw a path along
the entire length of the beach, with connecting paths to all accessing
paths and roads. That has not been done in Nederland, which has one
very long and wide sandy beach along its
Hi
The beach areas are, for me, mostly relations.
Some of one walk goes from rock to sand to rock and so on - just a coastal area
that is part of a walk .. not advisable at hight tide :)
Including areas as a 'route'? Don't know if any bits of software that would
handle that, especially if
If you want beaches to route in general, you need to draw a path along the
entire length of the beach, with connecting paths to all accessing paths
and roads. That has not been done in Nederland, which has one very long and
wide sandy beach along its entire west coast.
For the hiking routes using
Hi Warin,
i recently mapped the same situation: a costal hiking trail leading
over a beach. [^1] I just mapped an empty way (choice B), but later
someone added highway=footway (likely because Osmose or a similar
reported an error). I think that this is wrong, because there's no
visible path on
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 at 21:31, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There are a few walking routes that incorporatesections of beach walking.
>
> These sections have no 'infrastructure' - they are not formed or
> unformed paths, they are just walking along the beach.
>
I've mapped something
Hi,
There are a few walking routes that incorporatesections of beach walking.
These sections have no 'infrastructure' - they are not formed or
unformed paths, they are just walking along the beach.
The choice of how to map them? As I see it there are two;
A) Create a Path - tagged as a
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 10:20:35PM +0100, Claudius Henrichs wrote:
> I couldnt be happier to have the "Benefits of namespaces" discussion
> happening right now on this ML.
>
> I am about to finalize a tagging proposal for a new sub-tag. I am wondering
> about the pros and cons of the
Am Mi., 19. Dez. 2018 um 11:30 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt :
>
> "soft story" is actually an attribute of the whole building, not just one
>> floor. It's a recognized classification of a structural characteristic of
>> buildings.
>>
> Yes and no.
> According to Wikipedia [1], (and using British
sent from a phone
> On 18. Dec 2018, at 17:59, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
>
> A soft story building can be identified visually by the trained eye and such
> buildings are inherently weaker than others in earthquakes, even if they've
> been reinforced.
then the reinforcement simply wasn’t
17 matches
Mail list logo
