Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse
On 14/10/19 07:26, Volker Schmidt wrote: (disclosure: I am academic member, but express my personal view) The Great Divide route is, to my knowledge, not signposted. The source for thr route is most likely either a GPX track from ACA or a map set from ACA, which has their copyright on it. aca sells the GPX track and the map. For these reasons I think the Great Divide should no be in OSM. Say I used a copyright map to travel somewhere. During that trip I generate a GPX track. Should I not then have the right to use that generated GPX track to map things in OSM??? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse
(disclosure: I am academic member, but express my personal view) The Great Divide route is, to my knowledge, not signposted. The source for thr route is most likely either a GPX track from ACA or a map set from ACA, which has their copyright on it. aca sells the GPX track and the map. For these reasons I think the Great Divide should no be in OSM. On Sun, 13 Oct 2019, 20:39 brad, wrote: > I'm in favor of being flexible for cycling routes. A good example is > the great divide mtb route in Canada & US. It is probably not signed > very well, if at all. It was created by a non-profit & I don't think > it is an official government route. It is used by quite a few people, > both on bikes and motorbikes. It is in OSM and should remain so. > > > On 10/12/19 3:35 AM, Warin wrote: > > On 12/10/19 20:13, John Willis via Tagging wrote: > >> On Oct 12, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Richard Fairhurst > >> wrote: > >> > >> A new route_type= tag on the relation would be a > >> good way to go. > >> > >> Route= > >> cycle_touring > >> road_touring > >> cyclist > >> road_cyclist > >> road_cycling > >> > >> ? > >> > >> I think the word “race” should be left out, unless it is for mapping > >> actual racing routes. > >> > > > > Cycling can be left off - already in the network tag. > > > > Not 'type' - says nothing. > > > > 'road' would be ? Narrow tyres? > > > > mtbs we already have .. but > > > > commuter - local commuter routes to/from shops, transport hubs > > > > touring - longer distance routes > > > > fitness/exorcise - for the locals > > > > scenic/cafe - for local meetings? > > > > > > Some of the routes around me are well sign posted .. others are not so > > well done. > > Some local council issue maps .. some of these routes are usefull > > others are dreaming. > > > > In some parts of the world there are no marked 'cycling routes' yet > > cyclists travel from one point to another using roads/tracks and paths > > that most motor vehicle don't.. it would be nice if these could be > > mapped in OSM as there is usually no other source. > > > > I don't think a requirement that bicycle routes must have signage fits > > the entire world. > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Utility markers
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 at 20:30, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Edit the source, to vote, and you'll see there's a bit of a mess:
>
> {{Template:Proposed feature voting}} {{vote|yes}}
> --[[User:Eric Bie|Eric B.]] ([[User talk:Eric Bie|talk]]) 15:03, 12 October
> 2019 (UTC)
It was a visual edit that added the tags to the {{vote}}
template, thus disabling the template. I've fixed it by removing the
tags.
Regards
Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Cycling relation misuse
I'm in favor of being flexible for cycling routes. A good example is the great divide mtb route in Canada & US. It is probably not signed very well, if at all. It was created by a non-profit & I don't think it is an official government route. It is used by quite a few people, both on bikes and motorbikes. It is in OSM and should remain so. On 10/12/19 3:35 AM, Warin wrote: On 12/10/19 20:13, John Willis via Tagging wrote: On Oct 12, 2019, at 5:10 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: A new route_type= tag on the relation would be a good way to go. Route= cycle_touring road_touring cyclist road_cyclist road_cycling ? I think the word “race” should be left out, unless it is for mapping actual racing routes. Cycling can be left off - already in the network tag. Not 'type' - says nothing. 'road' would be ? Narrow tyres? mtbs we already have .. but commuter - local commuter routes to/from shops, transport hubs touring - longer distance routes fitness/exorcise - for the locals scenic/cafe - for local meetings? Some of the routes around me are well sign posted .. others are not so well done. Some local council issue maps .. some of these routes are usefull others are dreaming. In some parts of the world there are no marked 'cycling routes' yet cyclists travel from one point to another using roads/tracks and paths that most motor vehicle don't.. it would be nice if these could be mapped in OSM as there is usually no other source. I don't think a requirement that bicycle routes must have signage fits the entire world. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Utility markers
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 at 19:17, François Lacombe
wrote:
>
> I don't understand what do you mean exactly
> Voting options are a template, and not visible on source
>
Look at the votes so far. The first vote is out of position and looks like
this:
{{vote|yes}} --Eric B. (
talk
)
15:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Edit the source, to vote, and you'll see there's a bit of a mess:
{{Template:Proposed feature voting}} {{vote|yes}}
--[[User:Eric Bie|Eric B.]] ([[User talk:Eric Bie|talk]]) 15:03, 12 October
2019 (UTC)
--
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Utility markers
Hi Graeme I don't understand what do you mean exactly Voting options are a template, and not visible on source What is the expected behaviour you think about? All the best François Le dim. 13 oct. 2019 à 02:13, Graeme Fitzpatrick a écrit : > Just letting you know that something has happened to the page in that the > normal voting options to copy don't appear when you go to Edit Source? > > Somebody may have accidentally pasted in the wrong spot on the page? > > Thanks > > Graeme > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Pedestrian and highway crossings of tramways
Richard Fairhurst wrote > There is no need to have railway=crossing, railway=level_crossing, > railway=tram_crossing and railway=tram_level_crossing. They are > semantically > identical. The type of ways (tram or heavy rail, footpath or road) is > already expressed in the way tags and doesn't need to be duplicated in the > node tags. > > Let's just standardise on the simplest tag, railway=crossing, and nuke the > others. Actually for me it looks quite logic. At the list one could find a couple of topics on this matter. http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Why-the-difference-between-railway-crossing-and-level-crossing-tt5261037.html http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Why-are-railway-crossing-and-level-crossing-separate-tags-tt5258808.html On the other hand railway=crossing vs railway=level_crossing are at least documented at the OSM wiki. Perhaps it's worth to sort out the incorrect ones first. -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Toy Libraries
Hi I started the vote on Toy Library proposal. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/toy_library There was only one comment after the RFC which I added to the proposal, which asked for a subtag to identify toy libraries that focus on toys for people with disabilities. The vote will be until October 27 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
