Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

> On Jul 14, 2017, at 11:32 PM, Nick Bolten wrote: > > > --> need to add all driveways? > > This is generally a good idea - and to make sure they share a node. To me, if you are considering adding sidewalks, you’ve already committed to adding the service roads/tracks/etc.

Re: [Tagging] highspeed=yes

sent from a phone > On 14. Jul 2017, at 19:01, Michael Reichert wrote: > > In addition, mappers > in rural areas have more important things to map than fences along a > railway line in the middle of nowhere. really? An uninterrupted fence going for many kilometers and

Re: [Tagging] highspeed=yes

Hi, sorry for the late response on the mailing list, I accidentially send the email only to Richard. Am 11.07.2017 um 10:49 schrieb Richard: > without a proper definition there is no way to resolve your dispute > and the tag is unverifyable and of limitted use as is. There are two open

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

Le 14. 07. 17 à 15:41, Mike N a écrit : > when there is a small grass separation from the > roadway, they are drawn separately. For those cases, it is usually > allowed to cross the grassy separation and the road to get to the > opposite sidewalk. you can add a access tag like foot=permissive

Re: [Tagging] Combined use of addr:place and addr:street

2017-07-14 14:59 GMT+02:00 Tobias Wrede : > it's by definition we refuse to have both tags, as addr:place is defined > for places without streetnames > > > Well that's the question here, isn't it? Is it by definition or not? > that's what the wiki says: "Use addr:place

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

If those two footways make up a reasonable continuing path, that's a good case for using the unmarked crossing tagging schema. It communicates all of the features actually being traversed (footway -> crossing the street -> footway) and is extensible: you can easily add curb and surface

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

sent from a phone > On 14. Jul 2017, at 13:16, Marc Gemis wrote: > > But what if there are no crossings marked? Do we have to invent > crossings then ? (e.g. near each junction) > It is not uncommon to have such a network of sidewalks without > "zebra"-crossings. >

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

> --> need to add all driveways? This is generally a good idea - and to make sure they share a node. > --> need to draw virtual crossings at junctions? These aren't totally artificial/virtual. You can consider them 'unmarked crossings' and there's already tags on the wiki: highway=footway,

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

Another typical case - no explicitly marked crossings - sidewalk parallel to road - kerb separating sidewalk from road - hedge, interrupted for each driveway and at the junctions, placed on sidewalk, parallel with road. --> need to add all driveways ? --> need to draw virtual crossings at

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

On 7/14/2017 8:14 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: but merge sidewalk with the road where the is no space/barier between them. and that's were the discussion starts. When I asked when one has to draw a separate sidewalk a few weeks ago on this mailing list someone answered: as soon as there is a kerb.

Re: [Tagging] Combined use of addr:place and addr:street

Am 14.07.2017 um 14:32 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2017-07-14 10:16 GMT+02:00 Tobias Wrede >: Have a look at this place "Siesel": http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.22209/7.90369

Re: [Tagging] Combined use of addr:place and addr:street

2017-07-14 10:16 GMT+02:00 Tobias Wrede : > > Have a look at this place "Siesel": > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/51.22209/7.90369. The hamlet is called > Siesel and officially all the streets there do not have a name (you can check > on the "NRW-Atlas: ALKIS"

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

> but merge sidewalk with the road where the is no space/barier between them. and that's were the discussion starts. When I asked when one has to draw a separate sidewalk a few weeks ago on this mailing list someone answered: as soon as there is a kerb. m.

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

>>> A street with a sidewalk on either side but no marked crossings: >> These are (IMHO) mapping errors. You can't draw isolated footway islands and >> expect a router to magically understand those are sidewalks which you can >> cross without a connection. > It is not uncommon to have such a

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 1:08 PM, marc marc wrote: >> the "common sense approach" would expect. > routing doesn't know "common sense approach" :) > if 2 sidewalk or roads are taged as "separated without any link", > routing can't guess that a connection exists. >

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

On fös 14.júl 2017 10:51, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > 2017-07-14 12:20 GMT+02:00 Svavar Kjarrval >: > > > A street segment with no sidewalks on either side: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/64.12876/-21.90466 >

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > 2017-07-14 12:20 GMT+02:00 Svavar Kjarrval : >> >> >> A street with a sidewalk on either side but no marked crossings: >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/64.08800/-21.89846 >>

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

Le 14. 07. 17 à 12:20, Svavar Kjarrval a écrit : > A street with a sidewalk on either side but no marked crossings: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/64.08800/-21.89846 > (Sidenote: If one tries to route from no. 73 to 42, > GraphHopper suggests a long route while Mapzen assumes the user is >

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

2017-07-14 12:20 GMT+02:00 Svavar Kjarrval : > > A street segment with no sidewalks on either side: > http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/64.12876/-21.90466 > > This is an urban example, but probably you don't have sidewalks in most of the country (rural areas), and it

Re: [Tagging] Formally informal sidewalks

On fim 13.júl 2017 13:49, Andy Townsend wrote: > Perhaps a few links to photos would help? > > It'd make it a lot easier for other people to visualise. Don't think I have such photos on me and I'm fairly sure some people wouldn't want links to copyrighted photos in Google Street View. I'll do the

Re: [Tagging] Combined use of addr:place and addr:street

For what it's worth answering a bit late. I am not sure I completely agree. 2017-06-23 10:18 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer >: I agree with you, either use addr:place or use addr:street As the reason for using