Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 09:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > Generally, I would propose to only tag crossing =* on the crossing node, > but refrain from access like tags on this node (no bicycle or foot tags). > The access should be derived from the crossing ways. > This statement is only correct

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

sent from a phone > On 17. Oct 2020, at 21:01, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Nevertheless some crossings were mapped using highway=cycleway and bicycle=no > on crossing > nodes, probably because it is much less fiddly to map it. Yes I know, one possible outcome of this discussion here would

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

There really is a time, place, realm to cleave a sensible split between public and private. Choose the correct register, yes, please. Chill jets, everyone. Mapping in public like we do has its difficulties. Respect. I know it takes time to work things out, so let's work things out! I think we

Re: [Tagging] What does bicycle=no on a node means?

Oct 17, 2020, 00:17 by dieterdre...@gmail.com: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 16. Oct 2020, at 10:28, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging >> wrote: >> >> Not in cases where >> (1) highway=cycleway is crossing road where cyclists are obligated to >> dismount >> (2) highway=footway with

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (More service:bicycle:school)

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/More_service:bicycle:school I propose to introduce a new attribute to the namespace service:bicycle in order to map the bicycle school services that are often provided. This attribute could be applied to other POIs as well: an NGO or public

Re: [Tagging] Crossing tagged on both way and node (was: What does bicycle=no on a node means?)

As someone who renders a driving-focused map of [the most twisty] roadways, I specifically have done exactly what Volker describes (looking at highway=crossing nodes only). To provide an example, my renderer walks down each vehicle-legal way and demotes the

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

17 paź 2020, 15:18 od tagging@openstreetmap.org: > > On 17/10/2020 09:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> >> On 15. Oct 2020, at 15:12, Dave F via Tagging >> wrote: >> >>> Please send all messages to the public forum Martin. >>> >> >> I will write to whoever I want, not your business. >> > >

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

On 17/10/2020 09:53, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 15. Oct 2020, at 15:12, Dave F via Tagging wrote: Please send all messages to the public forum Martin. I will write to whoever I want, not your business. Wow. The arrogant hypocrisy. (& v. short term memory) You may already know it,

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

On 17/10/2020 10:00, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: On 15. Oct 2020, at 16:40, Dave F via Tagging wrote: Which negates any desire to change the meaning of railway=station from "places where customers can access railway services or where goods are loaded and unloaded." I am perfectly fine

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 at 10:03, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: buffer kisser (not sure this term exists in English) > I've not encountered it (but there's a lot I don't know). This WIkipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railfan doesn't mention it either. One of the few mentions I've found

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

sent from a phone > On 15. Oct 2020, at 16:40, Dave F via Tagging > wrote: > Which negates any desire to change the meaning of railway=station from > "places where customers can access railway services or where goods are loaded > and unloaded." I am perfectly fine with this definition, it

Re: [Tagging] railway=station areas

sent from a phone > On 15. Oct 2020, at 15:12, Dave F via Tagging > wrote: > > Please send all messages to the public forum Martin. I will write to whoever I want, not your business. You may already know it, but for the avoidance of doubt I’ll tell you again: every thread and all