Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > 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 Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail.

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Anthony wrote: > therefore, highway=footway, bicycle=designated means highway=cycleway, > foot=designated, which means highway=path, foot=designated, > bicycle=designated. > > Yeah, it's a bit ugly. Should we be deprecating one or the other, or doing mass updates o

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Richard Welty wrote: > 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". > > > > http://www.opens

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

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 highway=cycleway,

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Steve Bennett 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 tagged as cycleways.

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

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". > http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=42.77494&lon=-73.81625&zoom=16&layers=B000FTF t

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Steve Bennett 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,

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Steve Bennett 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 of pedestrians

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > it is a cycleway, if there's none of this, it is not. The rule is simple > and easy to apply. Yeah, it's just not useful in many countries - like Australia. Bike-only paths are almost non-existent. There are lots of shared use paths, a

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

2010/1/6 Steve Bennett > 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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > I'm actually just trying to work out a definition of cycleway that people > can agree on and that is useful. > Well, I don't think you're ever going to get everyone to agree on anything, but: Cycleway - a way exclusively for cycles. Motorwa

Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways

On a bb so I can't reply as well as I'd like. As for the network=* check out US and Aussie tagging guidelines its on the wiki As for the shields this is deviating from the topic at hand but for it the shield can be derived from the lookup table on the wiki and then extra preprossesing in osm2pgsq

Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways

On 01/05/2010 05:23 PM, John Smith wrote: > I'm talking about people adding network=us_ny_ny_co I’ve never seen that, either in use or anywhere in wiki documentation. Where would that be used? > I'm not talking about things like network=NH, ref=1 or ref=M5 > > As for how it might render > > Wik

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:26 AM, 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.  There's no need for this "definition creep" nonsense. > > BTW, footway is a bad name.  

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

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=bridlew

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:11 AM, Richard Welty wrote: > 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 Mohawk-Hudson Bike-Hike Trail

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Steve Bennett 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 about how to expres

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On 1/5/10 6:56 PM, Richard Mann wrote: On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Alex Mauer > 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=o

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Alex Mauer 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 signposted) and highw

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 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 it: every way or path

Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways

I'm talking about people adding network=us_ny_ny_co I'm not talking about things like network=NH, ref=1 or ref=M5 As for how it might render Wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Custom_Highway_Shields On 06/01/2010, Alex Mauer wrote: > On 01/05/2010 03:45 PM, Matthias Julius wrote: >> Alex Mauer write

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Alex Mauer 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 neither, because

Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways

On 01/05/2010 03:45 PM, Matthias Julius wrote: > Alex Mauer writes: > >> On 01/05/2010 01:32 PM, John Smith wrote: >>> Currently there is discussion on using relations to group segments of >>> a highway occurring: >>> >>> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2599 >> >> In that ticket, you wrote:

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On 01/05/2010 03:05 PM, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Alex Mauer > 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 > ...

Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways

Alex Mauer writes: > On 01/05/2010 01:32 PM, John Smith wrote: >> Currently there is discussion on using relations to group segments of >> a highway occurring: >> >> http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2599 > > In that ticket, you wrote: “we think administrative polygons should be > used for cu

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Alex Mauer 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 between taggi

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Richard Mann 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 if they want to convey a more preci

Re: [Tagging] Using relations to group highways

On 01/05/2010 01:32 PM, John Smith wrote: > Currently there is discussion on using relations to group segments of > a highway occurring: > > http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2599 In that ticket, you wrote: “we think administrative polygons should be used for custom highway shields, instead of

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

Roy Wallace wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop 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 this. I'

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

Richard Mann wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Nop wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> Am 05.01.2010 11:45, schrieb Richard Mann: >> > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop > > > wrote: >> > >> > Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need >> to >> >

[Tagging] Using relations to group highways

Currently there is discussion on using relations to group segments of a highway occurring: http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/2599 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On 01/05/2010 05:49 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2010/1/5 Steve Bennett > >> 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? Yes.

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Nop 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 as one-way

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

Hi! Am 05.01.2010 12:45, schrieb Richard Mann: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Nop > 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 can walk > a

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

2010/1/5 Steve Bennett > 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 corresponded to somethin

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

2010/1/5 Steve Bennett > 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 if a cyclewa

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Nop wrote: > Hi! > > Am 05.01.2010 11:45, schrieb Richard Mann: > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop > > wrote: > > > > Real cycleways with official signs are an obstacle to me that I need > to > > avoid. > > > > I know German c

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

2010/1/5 Nop : > Hi! > > Am 05.01.2010 11:45, schrieb Richard Mann: >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop > > 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

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

Hi! Am 05.01.2010 11:45, schrieb Richard Mann: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop > 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 ridicu

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Nop 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 a separate tag

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

Hi! Am 05.01.2010 11:00, schrieb Roy Wallace: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop 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 who

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

Roy Wallace wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop 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 pavement) >

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Nop 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 Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://l

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Steve Bennett 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? > Some people on

Re: [Tagging] Proposed definition for cycleways (was Re: bicycle=no)

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 p