Maybe the :conditional suffix [1] can be applied here. Something like
shoulder = yes
shoulder:conditional = no @ sign
?
But one would also need to tag the number of lanes that way.
lanes=2
lanes:conditional = 3 @ sign
Yours
Hubert
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Conditional_restrictions
[2]) then it's OK. The
compulsoriness to use such a cycle lane is due to the "Rechtsfahrgebot",
meaning an obligation to drive as far right as possible (, if possible). (I
hope I got that right.)
Hubert
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Z237Radfah
bicycle lanes?
@Hubert
I fully agree in case of a separate cycleway or foot-cycleway. I would already
consider a kerb as a physical separation.
But the so called cycle lanes (only divided from the motorized traffic by a
white line) should not be drawn as a separate way parallel to the street. And
ike oneway, width, smoothness, surface, lit, incline maybe also
traffic_sign and bicycle. You often end up this segments of only a few meters.
Plus you would have about 18 tags with cycleway:right/left(:*)=* on the main
road. And that doesn't even include other reasons for splitting up a way
"highway=path +
bicycle=designated + segreagated=yes" should be interpreted a compulsory.
Yours Hubert.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
has been invented for. So
highway=*
cycleway=lane
bicycle:lanes=use_sidepath|designated
vehicle:lanes=yes|no
is "better" but still not good.
Yours Hubert
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
.
Exemplary Tagging for L1a case: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/317191605 (A
bit overkill though.)
Mapillary: http://mapillary.com/map/im/Be58Fax7E_uqMr67iRNVKw/photo
Bing: http://binged.it/1MGbi4q
Yours Hubert.
___
Tagging mailing list
Taggin
Sorry Mateusz,
My Mail Client didn't download your reply until I sent my post.
Hubert
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
a cycle lane,
that is also not recommended.
Yours Hubert
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
I meant M3a not M3b to your question B)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
bicycle=no + cycleway:right=shared_lane +
cycleway:left=lane + cycleway:left:traffic_sign=* (+
cycleway:left:bicycle=official/designated).
> Volker
> (Italy)
Sorry, but there is no simple answer.
Yours Hubert
[1]
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Obl
t as a result (just as if you were
> to set the lane count short one lane in other contexts).
I disagree. And you still haven’t provided me with an example where having an
identical lanes count (lanes=* and *:lanes=*) will solve an existing problem.
Yours Hubert
P.s.:
https://help.
, Oct 13, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Hubert wrote:
Hey Paul,
„lanes=*“[1] is for the total number of car traffic lanes and should not be
confused with the “:lanes” suffix [2].
So “highway=* + oneway=yes + lanes=2 + cycleway=lane” is correct.
However, your
motor_vehicle:lanes=yes|no|yes
bicycle:
On Tuesday, 27. Oktober 2015 17:23 Mateusz Konieczny
[mailto:matkoni...@gmail.com] wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:12:50 +0100
>"Hubert" wrote:
My guess is you missed this when deleting the rest.
>I strongly oppose changing "separate ways or tag on main road may be
Yes, that’s a mistake.
From: Marc Gemis [mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com]
Sent: Dienstag, 27. Oktober 2015 15:25
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC - sidepath tagging scheme
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Hubert wrote:
Hallo,
I have been
Hallo,
I have been working on some ideas
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sidepath_tagging_sche
me
) to resolve tagging conflicts between sidepaths (cycleways, footways).
Explicitly the question, whether such ways should be drawn separately or
just be subtags of the central h
I'm sorry Paul, but I still don't understand what your issue is exactly.
Do you get an error message or similar in JOSM? What do you mean by "drafting
out the lanes"?
And in OSMAND the only "lane rendering" I know of is when you enable "Show
lanes" for routing purposes. Is that what you mean?
Cou
=use_sidepath|use_sidepath|designated|no)
Could you describe the problem a little more (osm way, error message)?
Yours
Hubert
[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/60809462
<>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetm
I don’t know why. Anyone please correct me if I’m wrong. My guess is, that it’s
a historically grown reason, for OSM (especially all highway related stuff) has
been/ is defined with double-tracked motor vehicles in mind.
Also, what tools are you talking about?
From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba.
.
Yours Hubert
[1] <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes>
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:lanes
[2] <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes>
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lanes
From: Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org]
Sent: Dienstag,
Hi.
I always tag it
“sidewalk:right:width=*”
I place sidewalk in front, because clusters all relevant sidewalk tags in a
single namespace.
Yours Hubert
From: Warin [mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com]
Sent: Donnerstag, 24. September 2015 11:19
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re
and implying surface=unpaved unless stated otherwise (*=designated,
surface=*, etc.)
Yours Hubert
From: johnw [mailto:jo...@mac.com]
Sent: Montag, 3. August 2015 12:30
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] highway=footway - Advanced definition: Distinction
For clarification: I didn't write that.
On 28. Juli 2015 22:32 Ruben Maes [mailto:ruben.mae...@gmail.com] wrote:
>2015-07-25 15:24 GMT+02:00 Andy Townsend :
>> On 25/07/2015 13:43, Hubert wrote:
>> It's also perhaps worth mentioning that the 18th Feb change (which you
&
designated wiki
>
>On 25/07/2015 13:43, Hubert wrote:
>> Am 24. Juli 2015 um 17:50 schrieb Heiko Eckenreiter
>[mailto:heiko.eckenrei...@gmx.net] :
>>> Am 24.07.2015 um 17:24 schrieb Hubert:
>>>> But only the way with the traffic sign will be tagged with
>>&g
d make it equal to the simple "yes"
>
>That was my concern as well. Designated needs some sense of an
>official notion of primacy.
That's not my intention. I agree that a designated path needs some sort of
(official) legitimation but the a traffic sign should not be t
Am 24. Juli 2015 um 17:50 schrieb Heiko Eckenreiter
[mailto:heiko.eckenrei...@gmx.net] :
>Am 24.07.2015 um 17:24 schrieb Hubert:
>> But only the way with the traffic sign will be tagged with
>> bicycle=designated, foot=designated using the definition in the
>> description
the way with the traffic sign will be tagged with bicycle=designated,
foot=designated using the definition in the description box
That is not logical, because both ways are still equally designated to
pedestrians and cyclist in both situations.
Hubert
[1] http://wiki.openst
=designated).
Same for cycle ways, at least in Germany as you might know (Pictures 1 and 2).
So requiring a way to be marked is too strong for that definition.
Hubert
Picture 1 :
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:RadwegOhneBenutzungspflicht.jpg
Picture 2 : http
ly formulated as the
"description" box and allows the use of "designated" in a much wider range
of cases.
Are there any objections against me change that word?
Yours
Hubert
[1] http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=31980
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access=
s what I am criticizing and am trying to resolve.
> > In all four cases there are in addition all the other tags like
> > surface=; smoothness=; lit=
>
> +1
>
> sidewalk:surface=paving_stones
> cycleway:surface=paving_stones
>
> sidewalk:smoothness=good/intermittent
&g
ested for the use of "bicycle=*".
Picture 1:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Separated_cycle_and_foot_path.jpg
Picture 2:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Separated_roadside_cycle_and_foot_path.jpg
Thanks again
Hubert
On Dienstag, 14. April 201
rg/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/Separated_roadside_cycl
e_and_foot_path.jpg) in the same way and in comparison to the stand-alone
cycle way.
Yours,
Hubert
From: Hubert [mailto:sg.fo...@gmx.de]
Sent: Freitag, 27. März 2015 23:57
To: 'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools'
Subject: [Tag
om: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
> Sent: Samstag, 28. März 2015 21:22
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory
>
>
>
> Am 28.03.2015 um 16:10 schrieb Hubert:
> > That's not what I wa
. For DE:240
(http://osmtools.de/traffic_signs/?signs=240) Pedestrians have priority (not as
strong), max speed is “adjusted” (DE:angepasst, depends on the situation). Use
is mandatory. (With the contradiction pointed out by Simon).
Hubert
From: Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com
ional use of an cycleway. In that case bicycle=designated
could be understood as the standard tag which is used on all cross-country and
roadside cycleways and e.g bicycle=optional is used on roadside cycleways that
are not mandatory to use.
Hubert
> -Original Message-
> From: S
For example a lot of cross country cycleways (like this one
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Altmarkrundkurs.jpg )
can't possibly be mandatory, since there is no road next to it. But they are
designated and official.
> -Original Message-
> From: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch
I believe this is the issue here.
For me bicycle=designated and bicycle=official don't say that a cycleway is
mandatory. It only says that this way is meant for cyclist or is built for
cyclist only. And while bicycle=official is mostly used for mandatory cycleways
there are also cases where it i
1) Well, sometimes it's the best way
2) I'll look it up. Cyclelanes: Same in Germany.
3) Valid point. For now I would say, one should look for bicycle=use_sidepath
on the road. Also, if that cycleway is truly mandatory, it means one has to use
it, so both roads off limits, so to speak. But I have
There will always be cases where a new tag is "breaking data". Just consider
those :right/:left/:forward/:backward tag.
The support of bicycle=designated is great, but in many cases it's IMO wrong.
While highway=cycleway + bicycle=designated (22198 uses in DE) just seems
unnecessary, since cyclew
I’m not sure if I understand your question. So please tell me whether I did.
A parallel cycleway to a road with bicycle=no could be very close, even
separated by a curb only. If cyclist are prohibited from those driving lanes in
general, that cycleway should not be considered bicycle=obligatory
comments already.
This value can be interpreted as an counterpart to bicycle=use_sidepath.
As this tag would replace bicycle=designated in a quite a few cases, I am
hoping for a lot of support from the community.
Happy mapping
Hubert
___
Tagging mailing list
ar as to declare it "wrong" tagging, but I personally
would not tag oneway:bicycle=no on such streets as describes by you. Instead I
would add cycleway:oneway=no to the osm_way and avoid the issue.
(On cycleway=opposite_track I'd use cycleway:oneway=-1)
Just my quick th
Thank you (Warin, fly, Andy) for the replies.
I know think that I have a basic understanding why *we* favor sidewalk=* over
footway=*.
Again, thank you all.
Hubert
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org
I just found the following Thread ion the GB mailing list:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2012-August/013663.html
(I haven’t read it yet.) Is that the one you where referring to?
Thank You. Yours
Hubert
From: SomeoneElse [mailto:li...@atownsend.org.uk]
Sent: Dienstag
Thanks for the quick response.
Sadly the discussion page wasn't much help. But I think I found the right
thread on the mailing list (though I haven't read it yet):
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-March/007023.html
Yours
Hubert
> -Original Message
le this shows a majority
use for sidewalk=*, I can't see why footway=* should be deprecated for
*roads* nor did I find a related discussion about this.
Could someone point me in the right direction for more information on that
topic?
Yours
Hubert
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:H
Well then: +1 to all. No exceptions.
Am 13. Januar 2015 14:01:16 MEZ, schrieb Martin Vonwald :
>2015-01-13 13:52 GMT+01:00 Hubert :
>
>> +1 to all. Except "none" in this case was meant to be the default
>value
>> from the :lanes proposal.
>>
>
>The &q
+1 to all. Except "none" in this case was meant to be the default value from
the :lanes proposal.
Am 13. Januar 2015 13:45:24 MEZ, schrieb Martin Vonwald :
>2015-01-13 13:38 GMT+01:00 Hubert :
>
>> I would not. IMO bicycle:lanes is an access Tag while cycleway:lanes
>
I would not. IMO bicycle:lanes is an access Tag while cycleway:lanes defines es
the type. So one could have cycleway:lanes:forward=none | lane and
bicycle:lanes:forwad= yes | designated , for example.
Am 13. Januar 2015 13:28:22 MEZ, schrieb Andrew Shadura :
>Hi,
>
>Some places in the wiki menti
+1. I'm also removal. But I can unterstand the idea behind it. However it
should be discussed some more.
Am 1. Januar 2015 22:09:49 MEZ, schrieb 715371 :
>Hi,
>
>there is a sentence on
>
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway
>
>which says
>
>"It is also possible to use {{Ta
Hallo.
Maybe "covered=yes" http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:covered is what you
are looking for?
Yours Hubert
Am 30. Dezember 2014 05:27:43 MEZ, schrieb johnw :
>I'm micromapping some public areas, in this case train stations. two
>questions:
>
>1) there are la
street-osm-way: There are cases where it
is better to have it on the road itself. For example when rendering cycle ways
in lower zoom levels.
Happy Holidays
Hubert
From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com]
Sent: Dienstag, 23. Dezember 2014 09:52
To: Tag discussion
bicycle=obligatory
or obligatory=yes/no, or … .
Right now, I also have to tag traffic_sign=* and another information if that
specific way is adjacent to a road.
Yours
Hubert
From: Martin Vonwald [mailto:imagic@gmail.com]
Sent: Montag, 22. Dezember 2014 15:17
To: Tag discussion
Hubert
From: Colin Smale [mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl]
Sent: Montag, 22. Dezember 2014 11:18
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional
cycletracks)
In NL I think it is similar to Germany. The definition of the sign is
"verp
The need to distinguish between obligatory and optional cycle ways is quite
common. Right now it's done by distinguishing between
bicycle=official/designated and bicycle=yes or bicycle=official and
bicycle=designated/yes.
In a similar way, I think it is better to use something like
bicycle=obligato
Sorry, wrong address.
> -Original Message-
> From: Hubert [mailto:sg.fo...@gmx.de]
> Sent: Dienstag, 4. November 2014 18:32
> To: 'Tag discussion, strategy and related tools'
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] [Talk-de] Tag:highway=traffic_signals / wiki
>
ected?
It would leave the problem that no one (Routers, Renderes) would use it and
it will probably often be changed either to cw=lane or to cw=shared_lane,
depending on the mappers preferences.
Regards Hubert.
___
Tagging mailing lis
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Junction
Gruß
Hubert
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
say, cycleway:lanes=,
or do we allow lane tagging in addition to the well established cycleway=*
scheme.
To get back to the original discussion, how would you like to see the
“soft_lane” being incorporated into either of the two tagging schemes?
I look forward to your thoughts,
Hubert
bike lane is not the extreme left/right lane.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Hubert wrote:
Hallo,
since a new main value for UK:advisary cyclelane, DE:Schutzstreifen,
A:Mehrzweckstreifen, NL:fietsstrook met onderbroken streep, F:bande cyclable
conseillée et réservée, CZ:cyklistický jízdní pruh d
=right/left/both
cycleway:right/left =lane +
cycleway:right/left:oneway= yes/-1
(assuming right hand traffic)
What are your thoughts on this tagging scheme?
Im sorry, if this is a bit confusing. Its late but I just couldnt wait
writing.
Best regard
Hubert
@ Matthijs: Not a tie anymore :-(. Clean up of the proposal page is in
progress.
@ Andy: That made me smile. Thank you.
@ Peewee: I'll probably do that. See new discussion thread.
Thank you all for your support. Even if you voted against the proposal, it
is still helpful.
Best regards
H
Hallo,
I have a quick question. How should I proceed with a voting that is a tie?
Hubert
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
I meant the two pages:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_kartieren
and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:De:Description:Cycleway:Track
which is linked to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Key:cycleway
Sorry for the confusion.
__
Community Project like OSM. If there are people that don't see that it will
upset others.
Also, FYI, I have updated the german pages on highway=cycleway und
cycleway=* (track template page) concerning the use of cw=use_sidepath as
defined prior (7.10 and 8.10). I hope this last a bit.
Hallo,
I would like to extend the voting period on my proposal, since it only has 9
votes at the moment. How much more time should I give it. 1 Week? 2 Weeks?
Also, please leave your vote and/or comment on the discussion page if you
like.
Best regards
Hubert
From: Hubert
Thanks a lot, and yes You understood me correctly.
Regards
Hubert
From: Pee Wee [mailto:piewi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Mittwoch, 8. Oktober 2014 12:48
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page
If I understand correctly you say it would
correct by definition.
I can understand the confusion. Should the use be made more prominent in the
description of the value?
Yours
Hubert
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
enstreetmap.org/wiki/Soft_lane
Best regards
Hubert
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Hey,
could someone remind me on how bicycle=use_sidepath is supposed to be used.
E.g. Always on highway=road if a compulsory cycle way is present or only when
this cycle way is tagged as a separate OSM-way.
Best Regard
Hubert
> -Original Message-
> From: 715371 [mailto:o
helpful but are not essential to the proposal.
With this mail, I would like to ask for a another round of comments to see,
if this proposal is ready for a vote.
Best Regards
Hubert
From: Hubert [mailto:sg.fo...@gmx.de]
Sent: Freitag, 12. September 2014 12:21
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Hallo together.
I would like to ask for any comments and opinions to this proposal
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Soft_lane.
Thank you for your time and
Best Regards
Hubert
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https
72 matches
Mail list logo
