On Tue, Oct 13, 2020, 17:41 Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 at 22:16, Emvee via Tagging
> wrote:
>
I changed the crossing to the way we do it in many parts of Europe, i.e. a
> crossing node *and* a crossing way. This was described as an option on
> the highway=crossing wiki
On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 at 22:16, Emvee via Tagging
wrote:
> On 13/10/2020 16:07, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
>
> I don't try to solve it. I put in a short way for the crossing.
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/781981138 is the first example that
> came to mind for me.
On 13/10/2020 16:07, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 8:07 AM OSM mailto:o...@bavarianmallet.de>> wrote:
How to solve the issue with a single crossing node at
highway=
without a crossing highway= because of "sideway
tagging by tags on highway" mapping?
I don't try
>> In the bouter github issue everybody (incl. the developer, but excluding
>> Mateusz) do expect bicycle=no on a node to mean bicyle=no in node context.
>>
I was looking for where this first appeared and I failed (maybe it was quoted
from start),
but this claim is untrue
see
On 11/10/2020 09:25, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
Including all this tracks feels ridiculous to me.
Agreed.
Over the past few years in the UK I've been maintaining/checking the
railway=station tag to ensure there are the correct number.
I've the changed the few that were mapped as areas to nodes
On 11/10/2020 08:16, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Are you mapping train stations as areas? From reading your replies
here the impression I get is you are advocating for not extending the
representation from a node to an area, right? I do not understand why
you are fighting so hard to make a tag
On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 8:07 AM OSM wrote:
>
> How to solve the issue with a single crossing node at highway=
> without a crossing highway= because of "sideway
> tagging by tags on highway" mapping?
>
I don't try to solve it. I put in a short way for the crossing.
Am 10.10.2020 um 20:16 schrieb Emvee:
Basic question I think, for a bicycle router bicycle=no on a node
means it should "avoid" crossing the node likely by adding a moderate
penalty as the cyclist could make the choice to dismount passing the
node. I know at least on bicycle router
Oct 13, 2020, 01:39 by andrew.harv...@gmail.com:
> For me "there simply is not enough community consensus to move forward with
> the change." is the issue because you can effectively lock out certain valid
> things from being mapped and consumed in a standard way because there is no
> large
