Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (highway=bicyle_crossing)

> my interpretation would be that "no" means that they are not permitted to ride across the crossing". If you tag a node the tags apply to this node, and therefor also the street would be blocked at this node for the bicycle. > OK, that wouldn't make much sense, I agree, still, the wiki doesn't rea

Re: [Tagging] New childcare proposal (malenki)

John F. Eldredge wrote on Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:48:16 -0500: >malenki wrote: > >> def onion wrote on Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:12:48 +0200: >> >> I don't know much about these social facilities in my country let >> alone >> others. I just know that the "real" orphanages where only orphans >> were attend

Re: [Tagging] New childcare proposal (malenki)

malenki wrote: > def onion wrote on Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:12:48 +0200: > > >Your right, orphanages are a kind of childcare facilities as well. > >From my point of view they are more of a long term service and i > would > >put them to the social failities. > >But perhaps its a good idea to view the

Re: [Tagging] New childcare proposal (malenki)

def onion wrote on Wed, 17 Apr 2013 21:12:48 +0200: >Your right, orphanages are a kind of childcare facilities as well. >From my point of view they are more of a long term service and i would >put them to the social failities. >But perhaps its a good idea to view the childcare tag under a broader

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (highway=bicyle_crossing)

2013/4/18 Tobias Knerr > On 18.04.2013 21:56, Alberto wrote: > > > >> It should not prevent this. We already use tags like bicycle=no on > >> crossings, and they do not mean that bicycles may not travel along the > >> street being crossed - only that this crossing is not for them. > >> More gener

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (highway=bicyle_crossing)

On 18.04.2013 21:56, Alberto wrote: > >> It should not prevent this. We already use tags like bicycle=no on >> crossings, and they do not mean that bicycles may not travel along the >> street being crossed - only that this crossing is not for them. >> More generally, it would be wrong to assume tha

Re: [Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway

On Thu, 2013-04-18 at 17:49 +0100, Jonathan Bennett wrote: > On 18/04/2013 16:22, Steve Bennett wrote: > > Disadvantages > > - tag clashes, particularly "name=" - is this the name of the bike path, > > or of the former train line? > > The bike path, as per "On The Ground". The path is a *former* r

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (highway=bicyle_crossing)

> It should not prevent this. We already use tags like bicycle=no on > crossings, and they do not mean that bicycles may not travel along the > street being crossed - only that this crossing is not for them. > More generally, it would be wrong to assume that any access tag on a > node within a stre

Re: [Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway

On 4/18/13 12:56 PM, Mike N wrote: On 4/18/2013 11:22 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: 2) Two ways, not sharing nodes Advantages: - keep information separate, retain everything about the train line Disadvantages: - messy for editing, rendering I would tend to keep it separate. Ideally, once it is a

Re: [Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway

* Mike N [2013-04-18 12:56 -0400]: > However I have learned that the abandoned rail lines should not be > removed - they magically regrow, so I allow them to remain as they go > through hillsides which have long been bulldozed down and through blocks > of buildings which have long since replaced t

Re: [Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway (was: [OSM-talk-be] Abandoned Railways / cycleways)

* Steve Bennett [2013-04-19 01:22 +1000]: > 1) A single way: "railway=abandoned | highway=cycleway | name=Blah Rail > Trail | surface=unpaved" (usually with a cycle route relation as well) This is basically how I tag them, with the following additions: a) If the trail meanders a little from sid

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (highway=bicyle_crossing)

On 18.04.2013 12:02, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2013/4/18 Janko Mihelić mailto:jan...@gmail.com>> > > I think highway=crossing + foot=no + bicycle=designated is enough. > > we are turning in circles, it was already discovered in a parallel > thread that this tagging would prevent the cro

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (highway=bicyle_crossing)

> could you explain why highway=crossing doesn't work, and why you think there must be access-tags on the crossing node? Because highway=crossing by default is for pedestrian. We are talking of bicycle only crossings (not pedestrian + bicycle). And there isn't yet an established way to tag it. So

Re: [Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway

On 4/18/2013 11:22 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: 2) Two ways, not sharing nodes Advantages: - keep information separate, retain everything about the train line Disadvantages: - messy for editing, rendering I would tend to keep it separate. Ideally, once it is a cycleway, it "is" a cycleway, and n

Re: [Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway

On 18/04/2013 16:22, Steve Bennett wrote: > Disadvantages > - tag clashes, particularly "name=" - is this the name of the bike path, > or of the former train line? The bike path, as per "On The Ground". The path is a *former* railway line, so it no longer has the railway as its *current* name. __

Re: [Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway (was: [OSM-talk-be] Abandoned Railways / cycleways)

Steve Bennett wrote: > Disadvantages > - tag clashes, particularly "name=" - is this the name of the bike > path, or of the former train line? Use relations! (did I really say that?) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/railway-abandoned-highway-c

Re: [Tagging] railway=abandoned + highway=cycleway (was: [OSM-talk-be] Abandoned Railways / cycleways)

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:33 AM, André Pirard wrote: > >> From OSM-talk-be, with best regards. I put the questions before the > replies ;-) > >On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 2:31 PM, André Pirard > > wrote: >> >>> On 2013-04-13 23:02, Marc Gemis wrote : >>> >>> ... [ full >>> message

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (highway=bicyle_crossing)

2013/4/18 Janko Mihelić > I think highway=crossing + foot=no + bicycle=designated is enough. > > we are turning in circles, it was already discovered in a parallel thread that this tagging would prevent the crossing node from being traversed by pedestrians also on the street. cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (highway=bicyle_crossing)

I think highway=crossing + foot=no + bicycle=designated is enough. Janko ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging