That’s why we render surface quality tags (surface/tracktype/smoothness) in
CyclOSM on every road.
So the reader can know the real state without bad assumptions*, and choose
if he prefer whoosh or plod depending of his ride style.
https://www.cyclosm.org/#map=15/49.1637/2.6323/cyclosm
*Though we
On 11/02/2020 1:40 am, Marc Gemis wrote:
Curious to understand why this is a cycleway and not an asphalted path.
When I look at it what I'm hearing is whoosh:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Richard/diary/20333
___
Tagging mailing list
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 8:41 AM Marc Gemis wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:26 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:36 AM Florimond Berthoux <
> florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Le lun. 10 févr. 2020 à 09:49, AndreasTUHU a
> écrit :
> >>>
> >>> I agree that
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:26 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:36 AM Florimond Berthoux
> wrote:
>>
>> Le lun. 10 févr. 2020 à 09:49, AndreasTUHU a écrit :
>>>
>>> I agree that 'surface' tag should be mandatory but in Hungary 54 percent of
>>> the mixed foot-cycle-ways
On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 3:36 AM Florimond Berthoux <
florimond.berth...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le lun. 10 févr. 2020 à 09:49, AndreasTUHU a écrit :
>
>> I agree that 'surface' tag should be mandatory but in Hungary 54 percent
>> of the mixed foot-cycle-ways misses this tag.
>> Additionally, the 20
Hi,
« Implied tag is the root of all evil »
as a wise man once said.
I begin to think that implied tag is bad, let the data consumer do that.
As long as the data is not set I consider the data imprecise.
For instance in France I will assume by default that every road is paved,
but it doesn’t
Andras,
as far as I can see this field is a bit of a mess, and the data consumers
will have to live with that.
I did not want to imply that "my" approach is better or worse.
In my view there is no way to "convert" existing tagging.
Volker
On Mon, 10 Feb 2020 at 09:49, AndreasTUHU wrote:
> I
I agree that 'surface' tag should be mandatory but in Hungary 54 percent of
the mixed foot-cycle-ways misses this tag.
Additionally, the 20 percent of foot-cycle-ways has no 'segregated' tag.
Not ideal conditions for converting mixed cycleways to path :)
So in Hungary we will contiune to use the
Your first point is correct and it applies here in Italy as well.
The default surface argument is weak. We do have unpaved official cycle and
foot-cycle paths.
The surface tag is mandatory in my view.
The same applies to sidewalks and minor roads.
And the "path" approach for foot-cycle-way is
Some thoughts from cyclist perspective.
I personally not using the (highway=path + bicycle=designated +
foot=designated) combination for shared foot- and cycleways.
1) If I change a cycleway to path, I will unintentionally enable access
for equestrians on the highway (according to this table:
Am 29.01.2020 um 21:11 schrieb Hubert87:
Just my two cents from germany:
In general
hw=cycleway <> hw=path + bicycle=designated;
hw=footway<> hw=path + foot=designated;
hw=bridleway <> hw=path + horse=designated;
For combinded foot and cycle paths: hw=path + bicycle=designated +
Just my two cents from germany:
In general
hw=cycleway <> hw=path + bicycle=designated;
hw=footway<> hw=path + foot=designated;
hw=bridleway <> hw=path + horse=designated;
For combinded foot and cycle paths: hw=path + bicycle=designated +
foot=designated + segregated=no;
For segregated foot
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 7:08 PM Jarek Piórkowski
wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:55, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:51 PM Jarek Piórkowski
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:55, Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:51 PM Jarek Piórkowski wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets wrote:
>> >> That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:51 PM Jarek Piórkowski
wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets
> wrote:
> >> That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common
> practice.
> >> I personally tag `highway=cycleway`
On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 19:45, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets wrote:
>> That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common practice.
>> I personally tag `highway=cycleway` where bikes significantly outnumber foot
>> traffic, `highway=footway`
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 6:14 PM Yaro Shkvorets wrote:
> That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common practice.
> I personally tag `highway=cycleway` where bikes significantly outnumber
> foot traffic, `highway=footway` where foot traffic significantly outnumbers
> bikes,
That passage should be rewritten. That's certainly not the common practice.
I personally tag `highway=cycleway` where bikes significantly outnumber
foot traffic, `highway=footway` where foot traffic significantly outnumbers
bikes, `highway=path` for the rest.
If you need to explicitly disallow
On 1/28/2020 4:49 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
Be that as it may, there are a great many `highway=path` objects
where the intent was `combined foot- and cycleway`. The concept that a
`footway` is urban while a `path` represents something more like a
wilderness trail is a rather new one to me. (I'm
On 28/01/2020 22:44, Dave F via Tagging wrote:
On 28/01/2020 21:23, Tomas Straupis wrote:
Yet for ten years ...
I think your mistaken ...
If it helps, someone on anther OSM list went through the previous times
this has been discussed and came up with
On 28/01/2020 21:23, Tomas Straupis wrote:
Yet for ten years or even more the logic was that...
Are there any reasons why this must change now? Any benefits?
I think your mistaken in your timeline. Cycleway & footway were around
before path was introduced to cover the
On 1/28/2020 4:23 PM, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> >Yet for ten years or even more the logic was that if the same way is
> > designated for both pedestrians and cyclists, it cannot be tagged with
> > highway=footway - as it is for cyclists as well, it cannot be tagged
> > with highway=cycleway
On 1/28/2020 4:23 PM, Tomas Straupis wrote:
Yet for ten years or even more the logic was that if the same way is
designated for both pedestrians and cyclists, it cannot be tagged with
highway=footway - as it is for cyclists as well, it cannot be tagged
with highway=cycleway because it is for
2020-01-28, an, 20:15 Jmapb rašė:
> Thanks for the background. Looks like Richard Fairhurst already reverted the
> "shared foot/bicycle must be path" assertion on the cycleway=* page. J
Yet for ten years or even more the logic was that if the same way is
designated for both pedestrians and
On 1/27/2020 3:53 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
The same user also changed the Australian tagging guidelines without
discussion, which we didn't notice till last October:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2019-October/013009.html
and they were reverted. Didn't notice at the time
On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 2:37 AM Jmapb wrote:
> Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ):
>
> (This was added by wiki user Aaronsta last May, with no change
> description.)
>
> Does anyone know if there was a discussion,
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 3:16 PM Mike Thompson wrote:
> Here is an example of a major trail in the area where I live:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/385367054 which someone has tagged as a
> cycleway. I have biked, walked and ran this trail many different times over
> the years and I have
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 1:32 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:16 PM Mike Thompson wrote:
>>
>>
>> Here is an example of a major trail in the area where I live:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/385367054 which someone has tagged as a
cycleway. I have biked, walked and
On 27/01/2020 17:19, Dave F via Tagging wrote:
On 27/01/2020 16:41, Mike Thompson wrote:
I have never understood the use of tags like "cycleway", "bridleway",
and
"footway." To me these mix two different concepts (physical form and
legal
access) in a single tag.
These values do not
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:16 PM Mike Thompson wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Kevin Kenny
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:00 PM Paul Johnson
> wrote:
> > > Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and
> access, calling things "multipurpose paths"
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:39 AM Kevin Kenny
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:00 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
> > Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and
access, calling things "multipurpose paths" even when they are clearly
purpose built for a specific mode and
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:53 AM Tod Fitch wrote:
> But having values of footway, path, cycleway and bridal way allow a
short hand that allows the map users (and renderers) to use a set of
assumptions about the way. And it allows mappers to quickly categorize the
way. I personally would find it
On 1/27/2020 12:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 16:37 Uhr schrieb Jmapb mailto:jm...@gmx.com>>:
And also editing the
highway=path page, which currently says it's not for use in urban
situations.
this seems very strange and is likely the result of
Grabbing some random images off the Internet, here are some highway=* and how
I’d tag them:
highway=path [1]
This may or may not allow horses or bicycles depends on local signage and
regulations.
highway=footway [2]
This may or may not allow bicycles, depends on local signage. My decision
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:00 PM Paul Johnson wrote:
> Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and access,
> calling things "multipurpose paths" even when they are clearly purpose built
> for a specific mode and possibly even do have specific mode restrictions.
True
Am Mo., 27. Jan. 2020 um 16:37 Uhr schrieb Jmapb :
> And also editing the
> highway=path page, which currently says it's not for use in urban
> situations.
this seems very strange and is likely the result of fiddling. In the areas
I am aware of, path is the standard way to map mixed mode ways
On 27/01/2020 16:41, Mike Thompson wrote:
I have never understood the use of tags like "cycleway", "bridleway", and
"footway." To me these mix two different concepts (physical form and legal
access) in a single tag.
These values do not indicate a way's form. That is achieved with
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 10:41 AM Mike Thompson wrote:
> Also, in the parts of the US where I have lived there have generally only
> been "multipurpose" paths/trails (a few exceptions).
>
Not exactly helping is that the US tends to also confuse form and access,
calling things "multipurpose
On 27/01/2020 15:36, Jmapb wrote:
My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
access keys for any other permitted traffic. Similarly for
highway=footway. So "highway=cycleway + foot=yes" and "highway=footway
>> My own impression over the years has been that mappers use
>> highway=cycleway on anything that primarily for bicycle traffic, and add
>> access keys for any other permitted
traffic.___
I have never understood the use of tags like "cycleway",
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:37 AM Jmapb wrote:
> Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ):
>
> > For mapping a separate path (on a separate way) dedicated to cycling
> > traffic use highway=cycleway. Foot traffic is
Jmapb writes:
> Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ):
>
>> For mapping a separate path (on a separate way) dedicated to cycling
>> traffic use highway=cycleway. Foot traffic is restricted on these paths.
>>
>> *
At first glance, the new text seems to contradict some patterns
presented in this article: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle
I've been using these patterns in my mappings.
On the other hand, the new text agrees with this:
Hi all, just noticed this passage on the cycleway=* wiki page (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway ):
For mapping a separate path (on a separate way) dedicated to cycling
traffic use highway=cycleway. Foot traffic is restricted on these paths.
* Do not use highway=cycleway on
44 matches
Mail list logo
