Not far from here, there is a network of designated bicycle/multiuse trails.
There are corresponding signs.
These trails happen to be MTB trails. Not all bicycles are road bicycles,
sorry for starting the obvious.
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.comwrote:
In bare bones basic, Steve, are you for or against using highway =
cycleway for officially marked cycleways only? That's what I would
like to
2010/1/8 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com
So the 22,000 highway=cycleway in the UK all need to be changed.
Unfortunately, UK mappers don't seem to agree with this.
well, I'm pretty sure if you'd start today you would have changed them
within some weeks, but still mainly
2010/1/8 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:
2010/1/8 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com
So the 22,000 highway=cycleway in the UK all need to be changed.
Unfortunately, UK mappers don't seem to agree with this.
If you are sure that there is zero official cycleways,
2010/1/7 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Tag highway = cycleway for official cycleways and bicycle=yes if it's
allowed to have bicycles on footpaths somewhere. End of story. Yes, in
Heh, that makes about three
Just a side note, I think different rules for each country for
footways can't be mapped exactly (some countries allow bikes on
footways by default, some don't. What happens when country rules
changes?). I personally would leave it to parsers/routers. Yes, maybe
it's moves OSM just a little bit
of re-tagging to do!
_
From: tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org
[mailto:tagging-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Martin Koppenhoefer
Sent: 06 January 2010 02:32
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways
2010/1/6
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, Steve Bennett wrote:
The asymmetry arises from the requirements of the modes of transport:
anything that a bike can ride on, a pedestrian can walk on - but not vice
versa.
except for the poor germans, who must not walk on a cycleway
2010/1/6, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com:
highway=path precisely fits your definition (in my mind) of narrowway.
So, use highway=path + access tags.
+1
highway=path is the long-existing and equally long misunderstood
solution to this osm problem. I don't get why some people hate it so
much
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
except for the poor germans, who must not walk on a cycleway
and the poor Austrians, Swiss, Turkish
and the poor Belarus, Belgians, Brazilians, French, Dutch if it is not
also designated for pedestrians or an alternative for
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
therefore, highway=footway, bicycle=designated means highway=cycleway,
foot=designated, which means highway=path, foot=designated,
bicycle=designated.
No, a highway=footway, bicycle=designated is not the same as
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Steve Bennett
Is it old as in, obsolete? Should we make an Australian entry, or is it no
longer relevant?
It is an old page because designation and default access is an old
topic and there is no black and white answer. In some countries,
when you tag a
2010/1/6 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
It is an old page because designation and default access is an old
topic and there is no black and white answer. In some countries,
when you tag a cycleway, it is obviously not allowed
Hi!
Am 06.01.2010 13:00, schrieb Steve Bennett:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com
Ok, so having created an entry for Australia
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_tags_for_routing/Access-Restrictions#Australia),
now does the above rule apply? That is, in Australia,
Hi!
Am 06.01.2010 07:15, schrieb Steve Bennett:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net
The asymmetry arises from the requirements of the modes of transport:
anything that a bike can ride on, a pedestrian can walk on - but not
vice versa.
Anyway, with the
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 5:06 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
therefore, highway=footway, bicycle=designated means highway=cycleway,
foot=designated, which means highway=path, foot=designated,
bicycle=designated.
On 01/06/2010 07:10 AM, Nop wrote:
No it does not. This equality was originally intended in the path
proposal, but there is also a large fraction of mappers who use it
differently. Their argumentation is like this:
- designated means there is a sign
- in my country, when there is a sign,
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
therefore, highway=footway, bicycle=designated means highway=cycleway,
foot=designated, which means highway=path, foot=designated,
bicycle=designated.
Yeah,
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
The biggest problem I can see at the moment is I really don't want to tag
anything bicycle=designated unless I'm certain it really *is* designated
that way (which I can't do from aerial photography), but I *do* want to
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Peteris Krisjanis pec...@gmail.com wrote:
Tag highway = cycleway for official cycleways and bicycle=yes if it's
allowed to have bicycles on footpaths somewhere. End of story. Yes, in
Heh, that makes about three people with very simple takes on the matter -
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 12:06 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
With cycleway it is mainly for bike with foot tolerated, so cycleway is
the equivalent of bike=designated, foot=yes.
Ok. To be absolutely clear: in Australia mainly for bike with foot
tolerated does not exist. Also, exclusively for
Hi!
Am 05.01.2010 03:51, schrieb Steve Bennett:
The important bit is to point out useful
information to cyclists - and labelling every single pedestrian path as
a cycleway would clearly be wrong.
This is exactly why I think it is a bad thing. It is too strongly biased
towards a cyclists
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't that what a map is? Some kind of look-up service for the real
world?
There is a layer of interpretation in the middle, that's the crucial
difference.
I don't know what you mean. That tags have definitions?
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
Real
cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
avoid.
highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P
___
Tagging mailing list
Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
Real
cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
avoid.
highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P
Or indicated on an other way (e.g. with a different color of
Hi!
Am 05.01.2010 11:00, schrieb Roy Wallace:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nopekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
Real
cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
avoid.
highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P
There's a considerable fraction of mappers
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
avoid.
I know German cyclists are fast, but treating cycleways like motorways is
ridiculous :)
But seriously, you have a point - usability by bikes should be on
2010/1/5 Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de:
Hi!
Am 05.01.2010 11:45, schrieb Richard Mann:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de
mailto:ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
avoid.
I know German cyclists are fast, but
2010/1/5 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
Right, I'm not confusing the terms. Some people have used the word
designed in definitions, as in designed for bicycles. That's all.
btw: is there a difference between dedicated and designated?
Legally. Although general practice (I believe) is that
2010/1/5 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
Well, I*M*HO, it's close to perfect. If you (well, a reasonable person with
some common sense when it comes to bike paths - not something Roy would
admit to :)) looked through a map, and every time you saw something mapped
as a bike path, it
Hi!
Am 05.01.2010 12:45, schrieb Richard Mann:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de
It is prohibited by law and you can get fined for it.
It's ridiculous because pedestrians can cross a cycleway on the level
(try that on a motorway), and 99.999% of the time pedestrians
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
My point is: There is an important difference between
- a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others)
- some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling
About like the difference between
- a road marked
On 01/05/2010 06:29 AM, Nop wrote:
The motorway example was of your making and yes, it is bad. :-)
My point is: There is an important difference between
- a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others)
- some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling
But is it a
Roy Wallace wrote:
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
Real
cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need to
avoid.
highway=cycleway if and only if it has an official sign...? :P
No. There seems to be some confusion in the Portland area about
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
... lets find other tags to make the
distinctions we want, and discourage people from reading too much into
highway=cycleway (I wouldn't go so far as to deprecate it, just insist that
people add tags
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
My point is: There is an important difference between
- a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others)
- some way that looks like it was pretty much suitable for cycling
...
I would suggest that the difference
On 01/05/2010 03:05 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Alex Mauer
hawke-jojdulvogomqvbxzion...@public.gmane.org wrote:
My point is: There is an important difference between
- a real, official cycleway (prohibited by law for others)
- some way that looks like it was
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
Close - but bicycle=yes just means bicycles are legal
(http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Access). For suitability
(whatever that means), I'd suggest bicycle=yes + bicycle:suitable=yes.
In point of fact I would do
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
maybe you missed NOP's contribution in one of the parallel threads, so
again: your point of view is bike-focused, so you think every way or path
suitable for cycling should be tagged a cycleway.
I'll restate
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
highway=path+access=no+bicycle=designated for the former and
highway=path+bicycle=yes for the latter.
Each to their own, but I'd prefer:
highway=cycleway+designation=official_cycleway (or whatever) (for those
officially
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll restate it: every way or path *especially* suitable. More suitable than
average. Much more suitable than average, if you like.
Anyway, I'm obviously not getting my message across, so I'm going to have to
think
On 01/05/2010 06:26 PM, Nick Austin wrote:
Just to be clear, highway=cycleway is shorthand for highway=footway +
bicycle=yes and highway=bridleway is shorthand for highway=footway +
horse=yes.
No it’s not. highway=cycleway is shorthand for
highway=path+bicycle=designated and highway=bridleway
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Nick Austin nick.w.aus...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to be clear, highway=cycleway is shorthand for highway=footway +
bicycle=yes and highway=bridleway is shorthand for highway=footway +
horse=yes. There's no need for this definition creep nonsense.
BTW, footway
2010/1/6 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
maybe you missed NOP's contribution in one of the parallel threads, so
again: your point of view is bike-focused, so you think every way or path
suitable for
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Why is that? Presumably you think the dedicated cycleway is a better way to
get somewhere. I argue that it's not the sign that makes that the case, it's
the construction of the path, its location, etc.
Doesn't the lack
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
... There are lots of shared use paths, and lots
of unlabelled paths. I basically want the shared use paths to be tagged as
cycleways (because that's the function they serve), and *some* of the
unlabelled paths to be
Lightbulb goes off.
Now I get it.
highway=cycleway means highway=path, bicycle=designated.
bicycle=designated means bicycles are explicitly allowed (generally, by
signage)
highway=footway means highway=path, foot=designated
therefore, highway=footway, bicycle=designated means
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote:
On 1/5/10 10:01 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
Trouble is, current usage (and renderer support) treats highway=path
very differently from highway=footway. It seems to mean walking
track with unmade surface.
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote:
within the US, i am increasingly seeing things that might once have just
been called bike paths
that are now designated as multi use trails, e.g. the Mohawk Hudson Bike
Path here in Albany
has become the
Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Err no. highway=cycleway indicates that the used way is mainly or
exclusively for bicycles; the route is designated for bicycles
Hi!
Am 04.01.2010 13:42, schrieb Steve Bennett:
Things that make a cycleway well suited:
- good surface: smooth asphalt is better than compacted gravel
- smoothness: few bumps such as tree roots or kerbs
- gentle curves: few sharp turns
- signs or legislation giving priority to bicycles
-
Steve Bennett wrote:
After much thought, I think I've finally decided that the definition I would
like for cycleway would be something like the way is especially well suited
to use by bicycles.
This definition applies to many ways that also fulfil definitions for
other highway values (e.g.
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com writes:
After much thought, I think I've finally decided that the definition I would
like for cycleway would be something like the way is especially well suited
to use by bicycles.
The
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Alex Mauer wrote:
Your criteria for a “well-suited” cycle way are inapplicable to many
cycleways. One big example is mountain bike trails, which fail nearly
all of them: good surface, smoothness, gentle curves, signs giving
priority to bicycles, and possibly navigability.
2010/1/4 Liz ed...@billiau.net
I don't see a mountain bike track as equivalent to a cycleway.
I would specifically exclude a MTB track from cycleway
+1, still I agree with most of the comments above that the proposed change
of the definition would not improve the situation.
cheers,
Martin
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
If it's a short path between two buildings or
something, I wouldn't call that especially suitable for cycling.
Others might. There is a lot of fuzzy area here. This is a problem.
It's called unverifiability.
And to
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me say back to you what you just said: A cycleway is a cycleway
if someone would call this a bike path. IMHO that's not helpful.
Well, I*M*HO, it's close to perfect. If you (well, a reasonable person with
some common
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
The primary purpose of OSM is to create useful maps, not to provide some
kind of look-up service for the real world.
Isn't that what a map is? Some kind of look-up service for the real world?
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
If ... every time you saw something mapped
as a bike path, it corresponded to something you thought of as a bike path -
that would be perfect.
Key words: something YOU thought of as a bike path. If everyone
thinks of a
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.comwrote:
The primary purpose of OSM is to create useful maps, not to provide some
kind of look-up service for the real world.
Isn't that what a map is? Some kind
60 matches
Mail list logo
