Op do 15 aug. 2019 om 15:00 schreef Andy Townsend :
> On 15/08/2019 10:56, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > ... So the lowest level always contains only ways, the higher level
> contains only relations.
>
> Please don't make things more complicated than they need to be. Most
> h
elf to alter display of that relation, don't know.
If you have a subrelation which is part of multiple parent relations, roles
could conflict. Could be main route in one, excursion in another and link
in a third
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op do 15 aug. 2019 om 13:57 schreef Sarah Hoffmann :
&
Where/to what exactly do you apply the role?
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 15 aug. 2019 om 01:20 heeft Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> It would be usefull to document the method of including alternate, side
> trips and access tracks to these route
.
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 15 aug. 2019 om 01:37 heeft Paul Allen het volgende
> geschreven:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 00:13, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> One hiking trail I know of the locals usually go bare foot, not only because
>> of
in a navigation/trip-planning app. But I will have
another look. I mainly noticed in many walking routes that damage by ID
still occurs a lot.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op do 15 aug. 2019 om 18:12 schreef Paul Allen :
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 16:57, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
>> I do it
Op do 15 aug. 2019 om 17:54 schreef Andy Townsend :
>
> On 15/08/2019 16:18, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Still most problems arise because ID edits damage routes.
>
> An unsorted route in OSM is not damaged. If your software cannot deal
> with unsorted routes then it cannot
orted just yet).
An example of a type that is supported are "type=route" relations. *Here it
expects that the relation exists in one piece as a series of linked ways *-
only in this case you will get a OK rating."
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op do 15 aug. 2019 om 18:26 schreef Andy Townsen
, but preserve, repair and maintain route relations cannot be done with
ID.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op do 15 aug. 2019 om 17:06 schreef Paul Allen :
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 15:38, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:00 AM Andy Townsend wrote:
>> > > The ways in
I do it a lot. Take it from me and all other route maintainers - You can't
maintain long routes with ID.
Most of the damage is done by other things then deletion. E.g. shifting a
way, connecting ways, extending a way, shortening a way, closing a way,
cutting a way.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op do
to maintain the road
network.
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 15 aug. 2019 om 23:14 heeft Sarah Hoffmann het volgende
> geschreven:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 04:50:26PM +0200, Peter Elderson wrote:
>> Sarah:
>>> There is relatively few software that can handle hierarchic
the change to each
relation and check again if all is well. When I am not in a hurry and the
affected relations have other gaps, I repair those as well.
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 16 aug. 2019 om 02:11 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer
> het volgende geschreven:
>
>
>
> sent from a phon
OT
"If we were to redesign the human body from
scratch it wouldn't have a recurrent laryngeal nerve, the epididymus would
take a
different route and the eyes wouldn't be wired backwards,..."
...and we would be born with wheels, wings and wifi...
Fr gr Pete
Good luck with that!
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 10 aug. 2019 om 11:59 heeft Julien djakk het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> Hello !
>
> I've been thinking about this for a long time.
>
> Classifying roads should be the same all over the world ! :O
>
> The highway tag
I guess next, someone will come up with another solution to replace both,
so we will have three solutuions. And then, someone...
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 09:26 schreef Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> Re: >On the wiki pages you can ignore / ov
I am all for harmonizing the wiki pages about walking routes. When that is
done, I would like to do the Dutch translation and discuss the tagging
scheme.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op di 13 aug. 2019 om 10:52 schreef s8evq :
> Hello everyone,
>
> On the discussion page of the wiki ent
a few OSM-significant countries, I'm sure renderers,
mapping tools and checking tools will consider implementing it.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op zo 11 aug. 2019 om 19:40 schreef Paul Johnson :
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 3:26 AM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
&
ve a cyclist, new to OSM, who wants to add a newly opened
> section to an existing route. As Peter says, doing this to said
> specification “usually requires lots of JOSM”.
That was about repairing a broken and corrupted route relation.
> The steps involved to do this
> in
Andy Townsend :
> On 19/08/2019 17:21, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> the only way for the likes of me is to use detection tools and
> maintenance tools to order data by hand at the mapping level, so ordinary
> people can use waymarkedtrails to get usable linear gpx-s for their
>
> Volker Schmidt het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 15:40, Peter Elderson wrote:
>> Ideally, you should not have to create gpx-s from them and you should need
>> no ordering or routing at all, because they ARE the routes. An app or
>> gps-devi
parts of the forward chain should be used reversely to
produce the complete route for opposite direction. Maybe the order of the ways
is a clue?
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 20 aug. 2019 om 00:28 heeft Kevin Kenny het
> volgende geschreven:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 6:05 PM
.
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 20 aug. 2019 om 08:13 heeft Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> The longest local route to me that I have worked on is over 5,000 km long. I
> am certain that would not fit on my GPS as a route using this method.
>
Richard Fairhurst :
> Kenny:
> > I do want editors minimally to observe the 'don't break the route'
> > principle. About 80% of the broken-route problem can be solved
> > simply by, "when splitting a way, both the pieces become members
> > of any route relations in which the original way
and the
ways. Then import that into OsmAnd. The OsmAnd combines that with the map
again, to turn the track (list of points) back into a route (list of ways
you began with) for navigation. Am I the only one to find this a bit odd?
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op di 20 aug. 2019 om 09:25 schreef s8evq
Peter Elderson
Op di 20 aug. 2019 om 05:49 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> On 18/08/19 00:07, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > In this case, I do NOT want to go from A to B. I want to do the hike,
> > that is the route, exactly as it is specified OSM. Those ways, in the
&g
wil actually
have followed the E2 as well, I'll give you that!
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op za 17 aug. 2019 om 03:16 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> My limited experience;
>
> Gaps on the gpx route tend to be straight lines, ok when they are
> contiguous but where they
Op vr 16 aug. 2019 om 10:59 schreef Andy Townsend :
> On 16/08/2019 08:50, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Josm of course. Is there another relation editor that can handle large
> nested route relations spanning up to say 4000 Km?
>
> P2 can, at least. Other people seem to su
op because of the trouble it causes.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op vr 16 aug. 2019 om 09:56 schreef Jo :
> Peter, I think Martin's question comes from a misunderstanding. You
> probably meant the route relations were broken by someone editing before
> you. Martin seems to have understood that yo
Op vr 16 aug. 2019 om 01:58 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:
> The wiki is not consistent, as the definition says the tag
> junction=roundabout is describing
>
> “A road junction where the traffic goes around a non-traversable island
> and has right of way. “
>
> Hm. In
there. It's about doing the way. As hikers
use to say, the way is the goal. Very Tao.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op ma 19 aug. 2019 om 14:46 schreef Volker Schmidt :
> Maybe it's the summer heat, or my age, but I still don't get the essential
> step in both Sarah's and Peter's reasoning.
&
an impression of the density of the walking trail system in the Netherlands.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op wo 21 aug. 2019 om 23:34 schreef Volker Schmidt :
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 at 20:48, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
>> I have to correct myself: I thought OsmAnd really performed routing
goes there.
But it can route you to the start of your track, and when you go off-track,
it routes you back on track.
All the more reason why the gpx should be a correctly ordered single chain.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op di 20 aug. 2019 om 16:57 schreef Peter Elderson :
> Andy Townsend :
>
&
Andy Townsend :
>
>> On 19/08/2019 19:04, Peter Elderson wrote:
>>
>> Ok, I accept I just don't know how it's done. So how is that done? How do I
>> tell my Garmin to guide me along, say, the Limes trail through the
>> Netherlands?
> Essentially, you'
Valor Naram het volgende geschreven:
>
> We need a system to prevent or instinct the usage of two or more tags for one
> purpose. I suggest the following behaviour:
> 1. Negotiating which key can be considered as official.
Who will negotiate, what do they have to negiate with?
What office
,
then perform the ingenious trick with routing where members of the relation
get very high weight, then write the result back (to JOSM, not OSM).
Advanced sorting!
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op wo 21 aug. 2019 om 20:46 schreef Peter Elderson :
> I have to correct myself: I thought OsmAnd rea
It appears to be a specific type of farmland, so landuse=farmland +
farmland=dehesa would say it all and disrupt nothing.
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 31 aug. 2019 om 12:25 heeft Diego Cruz het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> Hi Cristoph,
>
> Thank you for your feedback, it's reall
Op zo 1 sep. 2019 om 12:35 schreef Andy Townsend :
> On 29/08/2019 15:52, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > LS
> > With the arrival of cycling node networks, the Dutch, German and
> > Belgian mappers decided to claim (hijack) the network value rcn for
> > those node networks
live in a "stal" as long as their brain
is rewiring for adulthood.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op wo 28 aug. 2019 om 13:29 schreef Paul Allen :
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 08:29, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 27. Aug 2019, at 23:00, Paul Allen wrote:
>&g
? What did we forget? Shoot!
Fr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
present
the bottom line.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op do 29 aug. 2019 om 18:56 schreef s8evq :
>
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 16:52:47 +0200, Peter Elderson
> wrote:
>
> > We are currently discussing in the three communities how to coreect this
> > exception and return rcn and rwn to their
, they behave naturally, as they are intended to do.
Plants grow, trees grow and multiply, animals settle in, sand blows and
gathers, water rises, flows and lowers, just as when the feature was indeed
natural. Key natural is fine there.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
> Op 26 aug. 2019 om 06:21 heeft Jos
Joseph Eisenberg :
>
> While some have suggested that uses of the landuse=* key like
> landuse=grass, landuse=village_green and landuse=recreation_area lead
> to misuse of the landuse=* key, the landcover=* key appears to be even
> more problematic.
The problem is one particular user. The
I have now seen PT stop discussions a gazillion times. The references and
differences reflect the different usages people have in mind, from: I just
want to map what's visible on the ground, to Support every thinkable way of
linking, routing, planning and navigating.
Just saying.
Fr gr Peter
typo: references -> Preferences.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op wo 21 aug. 2019 om 11:13 schreef Peter Elderson :
> I have now seen PT stop discussions a gazillion times. The references and
> differences reflect the different usages people have in mind, from: I just
> want to map wh
a new key as a namespaced
variant: network:type=*.
If this is still confusing: feel free to suggest better names and values to
indicate that a route belongs to a network system of the node variety.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op wo 4 sep. 2019 om 18:33 schreef s8evq :
> Why don't you continue t
in OSM if they are implemented, without reserving a
mode/scope network=XXn tag which may be already in use for regular routes
(conform the wiki's about routes).
Please feel free to offer other solutions!
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op wo 4 sep. 2019 om 14:53 schreef s8evq :
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:56
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 4 sep. 2019 om 16:30 heeft Simon Poole het volgende
> geschreven:
>
>
>> Am 04.09.2019 um 15:59 schrieb Peter Elderson:
>> Thanks for the illustrations!
>>
>> network=* gives geographical scope (local, regional, national,
Richard Fairhurst :
> Peter Elderson wrote:
> > The network values identify transport mode and scope of routes, and
> > these "dimensions" also apply to node networks. We do not want to
> > add another dimension (configuration type) to the network=*
> >
, I think it's OK too.
We have the means.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op do 12 sep. 2019 om 12:01 schreef Volker Schmidt :
> I see similarities of this approach with the hiking paths of the alpine
> clubs, but with the important difference that the routes do not have a
> reference.
> A
route mappers came up with the
network:type tag to explicitly map network systems (i.c. node_network), and
since we have discussed how to tag a preference route system for trucks in
Amsterdam last year, I will ask on the Dutch OSM forum how they feel about
this idea.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op do 12 sep
only for maintenance en checking network integrity.
I think the network in Bremen is a preference route system.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op do 12 sep. 2019 om 22:49 schreef Hubert87 via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> To summarize:
> - (highway) Use lcn=yes on the highway; (my
questions arising from this.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op di 10 sep. 2019 om 19:49 schreef s8evq :
> I see that network:type=node_network has been added to the wiki:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:network%3Drwn=next=1897551
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/
, is by looking at an attribute of the routes.
A node network router also needs to distinguish exactly which ways to use,
so has the same need.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op do 5 sep. 2019 om 07:00 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>
> On 5/9/19 2:42 am, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> Pe
and a lot of other public roads, brushed together as a
rest category of "other roads". If we classify in the database, that's
'unclassified' or quaternary for me. Then residential roads/areas are
mostly entered through those.
As it stands, routing/navigating is not that bad, probably because
ym to document the date when total disagreement was reached, the number of
days that took and how many mails were sent?
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op ma 29 jul. 2019 om 08:49 schreef Tobias Zwick :
> One or several wiki edits should stand at the end of every tagging
> discussion, to do
We're on the same page. The pavement and separations argument just
illustrates how local authorities may make the same distinction, and try to
regulate traffic and safety informally. So here, I can use this for the
classification, but in the next town it would probably not work.
Vr gr Peter
I agree, but it also says don't expect it to be rendered or routed, it's a
fixme error. Mappers have used and will use 'unclassified' because they
want rendering and routing without bothering about the classification.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op ma 5 aug. 2019 om 09:56 schreef Warin <61sun
’.
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 4 aug. 2019 om 16:23 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer
> het volgende geschreven:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 4. Aug 2019, at 15:37, Florian Lohoff wrote:
>>
>> A residential is also an unclassified road.
>
>
>
the road by e.g. broad pedestrian pavements, parking lanes,
stretches of greenery, a row of trees, kerbs, and/or separate cycleways.
If e.g. a bus uses such a road I will retag it as unclassified. I would use
quaternary if I could be sure of rendering and routing, which I am not.
Vr gr Peter
function as "village green" in the neighourhood. Let's join the
countries that already do this.
I would also gladly help retagging areas wrongly tagged as village_green.
It's used a lot but nothing we couldn't fix in a project, if we agree on a
clear convention.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op
Hm.. village_common still says village, where often these areas are no
longer in a village.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op vr 19 jul. 2019 om 00:42 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> As Kevin Kenny says.
>
> The key 'landuse' is big misused for land covers.
>
> A
I would say some indication of the purpose of the terrain should be
present. E.g. Power infra, lineage, a stage area, signs, lots of things can
indicate that the area is often used and/or dedicated to a variety of
events.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op vr 19 jul. 2019 om 15:21 schreef Marc Gemis
Nederland: not Kreek, but Mui. Suatiegeul is officially correct but I have
never heard or seen it IRL.
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 24 jul. 2019 om 04:31 heeft Joseph Eisenberg
> het volgende geschreven:
>
> The voting period has ended for
> Proposed_features/Tag:waterway=tidal_
Defecation is a landuse. The implied landcover would be landcover=shit
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 23 sep. 2019 om 18:38 heeft Bob Kerr via Tagging
> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Hi, I have a last draft for tagging open_defecation
>
> See
>
> https://wik
Looks good. I think mapping the lowered kerb separately for simple exits is
a bit overdone.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op za 23 nov. 2019 om 12:28 schreef Allroads :
> I worked out a visualisation image.
> From the situation I linked in my earlier post.
>
> https://i.postimg.cc/jqJS
do hope the proposal passes quickly.
FrGr Peter Elderson
> Op 23 nov. 2019 om 02:36 heeft Nick Bolten het volgende
> geschreven:
>
>
> I'm a big fan of this proposal and like others I think it could be useful in
> many scenarios. Expansion beyond connecting sidewalk
Volker Schmidt :
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 13:42, Sören Reinecke via Tagging <
>> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>>
>>> This proposal is different. It's about deprecating the `phone` key.
>>>
>>
> (For deprecating a key that is used 1 504 275 times with another one with
> the same meaning you
Jmapb :
> On 12/8/2019 6:44 PM, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> >
> > Could you envision a node passed by two hikes, and being a checkpoint
> > for the one and nothing special for the other?
>
> Camino de Santiago ( https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/153968 )
> come
Is a checkpoint a feature in itself?
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op zo 8 dec. 2019 om 23:48 schreef Kevin Kenny :
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2019 at 12:29 PM Jmapb wrote:
> > On 12/7/2019 11:52 AM, s8evq wrote:
> > > In my limited experience mapping hiking routes, I have not yet come
>
with an icon even if not tagged.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op ma 9 dec. 2019 om 01:11 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> On 09/12/19 10:44, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> Ok, just asking to make sure.
>
>
> As an overview most hiking things are on
> https://wiki.op
Ok, just asking to make sure.
Could you envision a node passed by two hikes, and being a checkpoint for
the one and nothing special for the other?
Would a checkpoint need to be a node of a way in the relation?
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op ma 9 dec. 2019 om 00:16 schreef Kevin Kenny :
> On
I am now convinced it is useful to have a oneway=yes tag for a route
indicating it's not allowed or possible to go the other way.
As for routers, I would still expect a router to check all the ways and
nodes for access.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op ma 9 dec. 2019 om 00:36 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer
Sarah Hoffmann :
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 11:54:08AM +0100, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Also, i guess backward and forward roles are for ways only, the other
> > roles are more suited for relation members. Or not? Could I enter all the
> > ways of a 3 Km medieval castle exc
different from cycling
routes, which tend to have many sections where the route directions use
different sets of ways.
I think a simple oneway=yes on a hiking route relation could say it's
signposted for one direction.
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 7 dec. 2019 om 01:12 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer
&g
not to worry!
I also know a trail along a national border which features hundreds of
numbered border stones. Maybe add a milestone role?
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op ma 9 dec. 2019 om 22:40 schreef Jmapb :
> On 12/9/2019 3:43 AM, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
>
> I have walked many "
Yes I know... I trust nobody will rely on OSM for their life, unless the
rescue service itself checks and guarantees that the data is 100% correct
and complete.
But it's nice if they are mapped.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op ma 9 dec. 2019 om 23:25 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>
An approach always links something to the route so yeah, fine with me.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op vr 13 dec. 2019 om 14:29 schreef John Willis via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
>
> > On Dec 13, 2019, at 2:20 AM, Michael Behrens
> wrote:
> >
> > I wo
We happily add ferry transfers to hiking routes. Nobody has been found
trying to walk on the water. Nobody that we know of...
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op vr 13 dec. 2019 om 20:39 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 1
it with the transport mode. So the network tag for
the section would remain for example ncn, and add a tag to indicate it's e.g. a
train transfer.
Fr Gr Peter Elderson
> Op 14 dec. 2019 om 09:17 heeft Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> Where a hiki
A router should never assume that a route tag overrules a way or node tag,
for access.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op za 14 dec. 2019 om 15:43 schreef Volker Schmidt :
>
>
>
> Adding a bicycle=dismount is OK I suppose, but I'm unsure there's really
>> a problem.
>
> This
I think in terms of this proposal, a waymarked link is an approach?
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op do 12 dec. 2019 om 11:21 schreef John Willis via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:
> Links - as in a relation role value “link” - as in small pieces of trail
> that link some other
gr Peter Elderson
Op za 7 dec. 2019 om 13:22 schreef Mateusz Konieczny <
matkoni...@tutanota.com>:
> There are some hiking routes
> signposted with allowing travel in one
> direction and forbidding in the opposite.
>
>
> 7 Dec 2019, 13:04 by pelder...@gmail.
Martin Koppenhoefer :
> On 7. Dec 2019, at 01:51, Peter Elderson wrote:
>>>
>> I think a simple oneway=yes on a hiking route relation could say it's
>> signposted for one direction.
>
> I would prefer being more explicit in the tag name, e.g.
> sign_direction=
into
a 'collection' route relation.
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 7 dec. 2019 om 04:36 heeft Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> het volgende
> geschreven:
>
>
>> On 07/12/19 14:09, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 at 13:07, Martin Koppenhoefer
>>> wrote:
>
Cannot be legal for a pedestrian route, I think. So practical.
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 7 dec. 2019 om 10:53 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer
> het volgende geschreven:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 7. Dec 2019, at 04:36, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrot
Andy Townsend :
> Michael Behrens:
>
>
> There is no unique way to tag roles in hiking route relations
>
> I'd suggest making it clear that that table is currently for way members
> only - it doesn't mention node members (start, end, marker, etc.). This
> may be deliberate, or you just haven't
And, I would interpret the route direction for pedestrians as a suggestion, not
an access restriction or physical restriction.
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 7 dec. 2019 om 04:11 heeft Andrew Harvey het
> volgende geschreven:
>
>
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 at 13:07, Martin Koppenh
these be assumes to be
accessible and signed in both directions if no oneway tag and no
signed_direction tag are present?
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op za 7 dec. 2019 om 17:38 schreef s8evq :
>
> On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 01:09:37 +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wr
make this this restriction less strict: if there is traffic
control by static signs or markings, it's also a junction=roundabout. This
is visibly verifiable by any mapper, and would retain the requirement of
priority for traffic on the roundabout over traffic entering the
roundabout.
Fr gr Peter
I would say no, because the roundabout signs are not there. It's just an
ordinary crossing with traffic control signage and markings.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op vr 25 okt. 2019 om 10:38 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:
> There was once a normal crossing of 4 ways,
rotaries. Most of these are tagged as roundabouts anyway.
U turns are allowed unless there is a traffic sign saying you can't.
In short, mini-roundabouts are just regular junctions in Nederland.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op wo 23 okt. 2019 om 11:26 schreef Philip Barnes :
> There is also the r
on narrow junctions including narrow mini-roundabouts.
I guess that is why navigation systems keep telling me to "try and turn
around", without telling how and where.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op wo 23 okt. 2019 om 15:58 schreef Paul Allen :
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 14:35, Jez Nicholson
>
Can you provide the legal basis for that? So far I have only found
documentation saying there is no such legal restriction in the UK.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op wo 23 okt. 2019 om 15:10 schreef Philip Barnes :
>
>
> On Wednesday, 23 October 2019, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> > On We
Sound like a magical infinite multipolygon to me.
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 28 nov. 2019 om 00:06 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer
> het volgende geschreven:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 27. Nov 2019, at 23:41, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>>
>&
How about
use=* /* Answers the question: what's the use of this thing? Well, the
use=*
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op do 28 nov. 2019 om 09:53 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:
> Am Do., 28. Nov. 2019 um 01:23 Uhr schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick <
> graeme
Messages are sent with Reply-To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related
tools"
So simple reply should be enough, that's what I do and it works.
Fr gr Peter Elderson
Op do 14 nov. 2019 om 11:46 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:
>
>
> sent from a ph
Why would it be inferior? Visually, you mean? Or would navigational problems
arise? There already exist roads with some parts physically separated halves
and other parts combined halves, does that give problems?
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 10 okt. 2019 om 15:01 heeft Snusmumriken
> het vo
possibilities where in fact crossing is not feasible, even dangerous. That
would be worse for a router than the opposite, because it might put people in
danger. Routing a detour is the lesser evil.
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 11 okt. 2019 om 21:05 heeft Markus het
> volgende geschreven:
>
>>
are mapped separate.
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 11 okt. 2019 om 15:27 heeft Kevin Kenny het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 5:21 AM Snusmumriken
> wrote:
>> My assumption is that pedestrian routing engine would stick to
>> sidewalks and crossings and
work like that.
But, just documentation on a website or a book describing a route: I would
oppose that.
Mvg Peter Elderson
> Op 12 okt. 2019 om 04:27 heeft John Willis via Tagging
> het volgende geschreven:
>
>
>
>> On Oct 12, 2019, at 1:28 AM, Phyks wrote:
>>
places with a pilgrim sign. And yes, all the locals know it and
will point you to it. You'll get complete local history lectures with it,
which I would not record in OSM though :) .
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op ma 14 okt. 2019 om 09:38 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
> On 14/10/19 18:
601 - 700 of 991 matches
Mail list logo
