Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

sent from a phone > On 22. Sep 2020, at 00:18, Paul Allen wrote: > >> unless they are further than 200m from your actual position. > > Depends on the jurisdiction. In some parts of the US you must use a > designated crossing (at least in built-up areas). In the UK you are told > "Where

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 3:03 PM Volker Schmidt wrote: > > Mapping of sidewalks/sidepaths as part of the main road has all kinds of > problems, like width and surface tagging, the relative position of foot and > cycle paths, not to talk about roads like this >

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 23:04, Volker Schmidt wrote: > I think I mentioned this already in this context: in many countries you > are not allowed to cross roads everywhere you like. In Italy, for example, > you are by law required to use cross-walks, unless they are further than > 200m from your

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

I think I mentioned this already in this context: in many countries you are not allowed to cross roads everywhere you like. In Italy, for example, you are by law required to use cross-walks, unless they are further than 200m from your actual position. I know that this is very theoretical, but it

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)

I have heard mourning chapel, mourning room, funeral chapel, funeral room. Chapel of rest does not seem right to me, though I understand how the funeral business would like that term better. But I'm not a native speaker. PCMIIW. Peter Elderson Op ma 21 sep. 2020 om 21:14 schreef : > Dear all,

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Chapel of rest)

Dear all, As already mentioned, another ripple effect of my first proposal has materialised, the need to be able to properly tag chapels of rest as well. Therefore please comment on the following proposal: Chapel of rest: a room or building where families and friends can come and view

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

[Apologies if this was preceded by a partial reply. Damned laptop. G.] On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 16:11, OSM wrote: > > Am 21.09.2020 um 14:54 schrieb Paul Allen: > > This isn't as simple as you make out. Assume that I am at point A and > wish to > go to point B, which involves a "wild

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 16:00 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > if it is a power pole, why would you remove the utility tag? > When there’s a highway=track and you remove the tracktype tag the object > also will still be correctly tagged :) > You're right, I meant the whole information is still there.

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 16:11, OSM wrote: > > > Am 21.09.2020 um 14:54 schrieb Paul Allen: > > > This isn't as simple as you make out. Assume that I am at point A and > wish to > go to point B, which involves a "wild crossing" at some point between the > two. > However, there is a real crossing

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

So we need a way to determine the crossability of a road for walkers and cyclists, probably using a combination of highway value of the crossed way, maybe the access tag (foot=yes probably can be crossed on foot) and some indicator tag for crossing access (foot:crossing=yes/no ?) to tag

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

Sorry sorry for the noise - I dont know, who pushed the send button that often ... Georg ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

Am 21.09.2020 um 14:54 schrieb Paul Allen: On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 11:06, Supaplex > wrote: The problem remains that physically non-existent road crossings ("wildly crossing the street"), which in reality represent a crossing possibility for many users,

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

sent from a phone > On 21. Sep 2020, at 15:36, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > or if someone outright deletes the utility tag, that power pole is still > correctly tagged. if it is a power pole, why would you remove the utility tag? When there’s a highway=track and you remove the tracktype tag

Re: [Tagging] "width" on streets: Time for a recommendation

As a result of this discussion I would like to add a clarifying paragraph on the corresponding wiki page. The core statement is: "To avoid these ambiguities, some tags are in use to specify the width of different elements: ..." See the Talk Page:

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

There are a lot of big power towers that carry an optical communications line together with the power lines. Would that be utility=power;communication? Adding specific implied information is not wrong, but data consumers shouldn't rely on them. If someone changes utility=power to

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

On Mon, 21 Sep 2020 at 11:06, Supaplex wrote: The problem remains that physically non-existent road crossings ("wildly > crossing the street"), which in reality represent a crossing possibility > for many users, are still not available for routing. In my opinion, this > problem is not very

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

It's centered on motorists‘ point of view as long as cars are granted the central role as user group of streets in the traffic planning discourse - for the time after that we already have highway=living_street, highway=pedestrian and bicycle_road=yes. ;) Am 21.09.20 um 12:42 schrieb Martin

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

isn’t this all centered on motorists‘ point of view? What do people think about seeing it from other perspectives, e.g. highway=cycleway and adding tags like primary=track (means there is an implied primary road, physically separated, which is running along this cycleway). Can also be done for

Re: [Tagging] Linking Sidewalks to Highways

This leads to another topic where there is just as much need for action. You can find the is_sidepath-scheme here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:is_sidepath It looks like a stub (note also the talk page), because the idea is very simple but still solves some big