Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

Your kind of right, but It's a better set of tags than what exists for most of the ways in the western US,  There are probably thousands of miles of trail in the western US that have not much more than highway=path tagging.   It's a safe assumption that they are not paved, or recommended for a

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On 4/2/20 1:32 PM, Dave F wrote: On 02/04/2020 20:02, brad wrote: No need for sympathy, I strongly agree with what you're saying. I think it's unfortunate that we even have the cycleway and footway tags, but they need to be treated as special cases of highway=path, Are you also suggesting

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

On 2020-04-02 2:33 p.m., Yves wrote: Surely this can be fixed if needed, but Osm2pgsql still has a route_name column? osm2pgsql doesn't have any columns. It will produce a database with the columns you tell it to, transformed how you tell it to.

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:12 PM brad wrote: > The trouble with this is that very few trails are 'designated' for > riding a bicycle. They are legal for bikes, hikers, and horses. > Cycleway is a lousy tag for a multiuse trail. Fortunately most of the > tagers where I ride, travel, and contribute

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On 03/04/2020 00:35, Morten Lange via Tagging wrote: I agree. And I am glad to se that seems to the overwhelming sentimemt on the list. MTB trails are a specific type of cycleway. They are indicated as such by using specific tags in combination with highway=cycleway. For those who want to

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On Thursday, 2 April 2020, 13:41:26 CEST, Snusmumriken wrote: >  > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 22:24 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > just usually only a certain kind of bicycle. >  > Well, that's the problem, if one can't travel on a certain way with a > general purpose bicycle, then it

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

Surely this can be fixed if needed, but Osm2pgsql still has a route_name column? A strange and evil case of rendering for the mapper. Yves Le 2 avril 2020 23:00:53 GMT+02:00, Richard Fairhurst a écrit : >Peter Elderson wrote: >> Suggestion for rendering: >> What about osmc:name=* >> I know,

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

> The trouble with this is that very few trails are 'designated' for > riding a bicycle. They are legal for bikes, hikers, and horses. Please not that this is different in at least three countries in Europe: highway=cycleway excludes any other means of transport including foot. See also the

Re: [Tagging] Route names that aren’t names

Peter Elderson wrote: > Suggestion for rendering: > What about osmc:name=* > I know, doesn't exist, but it's a logical companion of osmc:symbol. > Definition would be: name to show on the map. > Definition should be: just the simple name as found in the field, or > the nae ecerybody knows and

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

brad wrote: > The proper tag is highway=path, foot=yes, horse=yes, bike=yes. That's an utterly terrible set of tags _unless_ you also specify a surface tag. highway=cycleway is, by default, a way whose construction standards are "good enough to ride a bike on". Great! I can route along it.

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

brad writes: > How many trails are there that are not shared use? In my town, most of the town-owned conservation land has rules that say: trails shown on the official map may be used by hikers, bicycles and horses other trails may be used by hikers only So there are a lot that are

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On 02/04/2020 20:11, brad wrote: On 4/2/20 10:56 AM, Dave F via Tagging wrote: And here we go again... If a way is designated for riding a bicycle then it's a cycleway, irrelevant of severity or conditions. The trouble with this is that very few trails are 'designated' for riding a

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On 02/04/2020 15:53, Kevin Kenny wrote: A key issue is that mtb:scale can't be the only indication. Otherwise, we're falling into a trap - which has been a common trap in the past. It's a trolltag https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Trolltag - a second tag that negates or massively changes

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On 02/04/2020 20:02, brad wrote: No need for sympathy, I strongly agree with what you're saying.  I think it's unfortunate that we even have the cycleway and footway tags, but they need to be treated as special cases of highway=path, Are you also suggesting removing the "special cases" of

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 10:53:57 -0400 Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 5:12 AM Volker Schmidt > wrote: > > > > If a highway is mtb:scale=2 it is definitely not a cycleway. It is > > a highway=path with mtb:scale=2 If this were to encounter a > > "cycleway" with mtb:scale=2 , I would

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On 4/2/20 10:56 AM, Dave F via Tagging wrote: And here we go again... If a way is designated for riding a bicycle then it's a cycleway, irrelevant of severity or conditions. The trouble with this is that very few trails are 'designated' for riding a bicycle.  They are legal for bikes,

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On 4/2/20 10:02 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:54 AM Greg Troxel wrote: However, around me there is a convention that any dirt/unimproved/in-the-woods sort of thing is path, and in-town/paved/manicured sorts of are highway=footway. I started tagging trails as 'path' - and

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On 4/2/20 4:33 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: There is another aspect: The wiki page highway=cycleway states also " Tagging a way with highway =cycleway implies that the route is designated for bicycles." This means it implies, at least in Italy

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On 02/04/2020 12:40, Snusmumriken wrote: On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 22:24 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote: just usually only a certain kind of bicycle. Well, that's the problem, if one can't travel on a certain way with a general purpose bicycle, then it shouldn't be tagged highway=cycleway You're

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

A Do., 2. Apr. 2020 um 19:14 Uhr schrieb Dave F via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org>: > > You're misinterpreting 'cycleway'. In itself, it carries no implication > of permission, ability, condition or location. These should all be > covered with additional sub/adjective tags. Is it a

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On 02/04/2020 11:33, Volker Schmidt wrote: There is another aspect: The wiki page highway=cycleway states also " Tagging a way with highway =cycleway implies that the route is designated for bicycles." This means it implies, at least in Italy and

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

And here we go again... If a way is designated for riding a bicycle then it's a cycleway, irrelevant of severity or conditions. cycleway with mtb:scale combination is a valid tag. mtb:scale gives an indication of what equipment would probably be required. The problem, as so often in OSM, is

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On 4/2/2020 9:29 AM, Paul Johnson wrote: On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 3:10 AM Andrew Harvey mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote: My view based on current usage, reading of the wiki and general opinion is that highway=cycleway is meant for any path that is either designed/intended

Re: [Tagging] iD semi automatic adding public_transport to aerialway=station

Hi Gegorian, You wrote: "No for public_transport tagging for aerialways what are generaly used for winter sport only during winter. No for aerialway in winter sport areas if the are used during summer to transport people. aerialway:summer:access=yes/booth/exit/etc. No for aerialway=goods  

Re: [Tagging] iD semi automatic adding public_transport to aerialway=station

Can someone add this sugestions to the Wiki, or need these disscusion more time to hear different meanings? As written in my previous email, for me the situation is clear how to map a "aerialway=station", and for now, there was noone against my sugestion.   regards Gregor   Sent: Tuesday,

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 11:54 AM Greg Troxel wrote: > However, around me there is a convention that any > dirt/unimproved/in-the-woods sort of thing is path, and > in-town/paved/manicured sorts of are highway=footway. I started tagging trails as 'path' - and found that the locals immediately

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

Snusmumriken writes: > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 22:24 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote: >> just usually only a certain kind of bicycle. > > Well, that's the problem, if one can't travel on a certain way with a > general purpose bicycle, then it shouldn't be tagged highway=cycleway I agree, and I think

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

I see that this message was not sent: On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 12:54, Andrew Harvey wrote: > Formal mountain bike tracks are designated bicycle routes. > I know that some are, and that is most likely one of the reasons that we are discussing here. Most those were created before the dedicated

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

The Australian example is clearly not a cycleway, it is the equivalent of a Formula 1 race track for MTBs: It's oneway-only, "only for experienced mountain bikers", and, I suppose closed to any other traffica , including pedestrians. So I would say that it cleanly falls into the category of

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 5:12 AM Volker Schmidt wrote: > > If a highway is mtb:scale=2 it is definitely not a cycleway. It is a > highway=path with mtb:scale=2 > If this were to encounter a "cycleway" with mtb:scale=2 , I would consider > this an error and retag it as highway=path without

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 07:40, Snusmumriken wrote: > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 22:24 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > just usually only a certain kind of bicycle. > > Well, that's the problem, if one can't travel on a certain way with a > general purpose bicycle, then it shouldn't be tagged

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 22:41, Snusmumriken wrote: > On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 22:24 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > just usually only a certain kind of bicycle. > > Well, that's the problem, if one can't travel on a certain way with a > general purpose bicycle, then it shouldn't be tagged

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 23:17, Florimond Berthoux < florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, > > The first time I saw cycleways on the map in the Alps on mountains I was > surprised, and not really confident with the tagging. > > I think I agree that a cycleway should be useable by any kind of

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

Hello, The first time I saw cycleways on the map in the Alps on mountains I was surprised, and not really confident with the tagging. I think I agree that a cycleway should be useable by any kind of bicycle. What we have today to tag mtb ways : If it’s a shared path with pedestrian (hiking) or

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 22:24 +1100, Andrew Harvey wrote: > just usually only a certain kind of bicycle. Well, that's the problem, if one can't travel on a certain way with a general purpose bicycle, then it shouldn't be tagged highway=cycleway ___

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 21:51, Marc M. wrote: > Le 02.04.20 à 12:13, Yves a écrit : > > I disagree here, a cycle map should not ignore mtb:scale > > please keep the principle of least surprise in mind. > highway=cycleway not-for-bicycle is like a "highway=footway + foo=no" > or like "building=yes

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 21:35, Volker Schmidt wrote: > There is another aspect: > The wiki page highway=cycleway states also > " Tagging a way with highway > =cycleway implies that > the route is designated for bicycles." > Formal mountain bike

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

Hello, Le 02.04.20 à 12:13, Yves a écrit : > I disagree here, a cycle map should not ignore mtb:scale please keep the principle of least surprise in mind. highway=cycleway not-for-bicycle is like a "highway=footway + foo=no" or like "building=yes fullydestroyed=yes" I can't find the wiki page

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

There is another aspect: The wiki page highway=cycleway states also " Tagging a way with highway =cycleway implies that the route is designated for bicycles." This means it implies, at least in Italy and Germany, that this is equivalent to this

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

But highway=path is for unspecified, mixed use or generic paths. A > designated mountain bike track is not that, it's a path specifically for > bicycles. > > If mountain bike tracks should be tagged as highway=path, then the > definition of path needs to be changed to not be an unspecified or

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

I disagree here, a cycle map should not ignore mtb:scale, and a cycle map for commuting should probably ignore mtb:scale beyond 1. The exact same for footways and sac_scale. There will always be discussions and mapper's errors for cycleway, so the safest way to go for a renderer or a router is

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 20:12, Volker Schmidt wrote: > If a highway is mtb:scale=2 it is definitely not a cycleway. It is a > highway=path with mtb:scale=2 > If this were to encounter a "cycleway" with mtb:scale=2 , I would consider > this an error and retag it as highway=path without hesitation.

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

If a highway is mtb:scale=2 it is definitely not a cycleway. It is a highway=path with mtb:scale=2 If this were to encounter a "cycleway" with mtb:scale=2 , I would consider this an error and retag it as highway=path without hesitation. I agree, that this is not explicitly stated in the bicycle

Re: [Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

My view based on current usage, reading of the wiki and general opinion is that highway=cycleway is meant for any path that is either designed/intended for bicycles or specifically designated (signposted) for bicycles, irrespective of if it's an urban track or mountain biking track. So a mountain

[Tagging] Can highway=cycleway be limited to MTB?

Hi, A discussion in CyclOSM issue tracker [1] spotted that there exists around 3500 highway=cycleway around the world which have specific mountain bikes (MTB) tags. In particular, around 800 highway=cycleway around the world declare a mtb:scale greater than 2, which would make them impassable