Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

2015-11-28 Thread Hubert
traffic sign, [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:Z237Radfahrstreifen.jpeg

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

2015-11-27 Thread Hubert
to 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

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

2015-11-27 Thread Hubert
way=path + bicycle=designated + segreagated=yes" should be interpreted a compulsory. Yours Hubert. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

2015-11-27 Thread Hubert
, 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. Yours Hubert

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

2015-11-26 Thread Hubert
le=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/Obligato

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

2015-11-26 Thread Hubert
I meant M3a not M3b to your question B) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

2015-11-26 Thread Hubert
e case of a cycle lane, that is also not recommended. Yours Hubert ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

2015-11-26 Thread Hubert
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

Re: [Tagging] Suggested tagging (was: bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?)

2015-11-26 Thread Hubert
y 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 Tagging@openstre

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

2015-11-26 Thread Hubert
nvented 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

Re: [Tagging] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

2015-10-29 Thread Hubert
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.opens

Re: [Tagging] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

2015-10-29 Thread Hubert
13, 2015 at 6:37 AM, Hubert <sg.fo...@gmx.de> 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:lan

[Tagging] RFC - sidepath tagging scheme

2015-10-27 Thread Hubert
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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - sidepath tagging scheme

2015-10-27 Thread Hubert
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 <sg.fo...@gmx.de> wrote:

Re: [Tagging] RFC - sidepath tagging scheme

2015-10-27 Thread Hubert
On Tuesday, 27. Oktober 2015 17:23 Mateusz Konieczny [mailto:matkoni...@gmail.com] wrote: >On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:12:50 +0100 >"Hubert" <sg.fo...@gmx.de> wrote: My guess is you missed this when deleting the rest. >I strongly oppose changing "separate ways or tag o

Re: [Tagging] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

2015-10-21 Thread Hubert
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?

Re: [Tagging] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

2015-10-13 Thread Hubert
. 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,

Re: [Tagging] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

2015-10-13 Thread Hubert
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

Re: [Tagging] sidewalk width

2015-09-24 Thread Hubert
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

Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki

2015-07-28 Thread Hubert
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 bicycle=designated, foot=designated using the definition in the description

Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki

2015-07-28 Thread Hubert
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 ajt1...@gmail.com: On 25/07/2015 13:43, Hubert wrote: It's also perhaps worth mentioning that the 18th Feb change (which you - and I

Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki

2015-07-25 Thread Hubert
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 box That is not logical

Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki

2015-07-25 Thread Hubert
agree that a designated path needs some sort of (official) legitimation but the a traffic sign should not be the only criteria. Hubert ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] access=designated wiki

2015-07-24 Thread Hubert
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=designated ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging

Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki

2015-07-24 Thread Hubert
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.openstreetmap.org/wiki

Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki

2015-07-24 Thread Hubert
=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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

2015-04-15 Thread Hubert
with a combination of highway=* , bicycle=* and cycleway=*, in a way that the data can be used by renderers and routers to distinguish between mandatory and optional cycle ways and roadside as well as stand-alone cycle ways. Including other tags if they are applicable. Yours Hubert Picture 1: https

Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

2015-04-14 Thread Hubert
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 2015 00:09 schireb

Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

2015-04-13 Thread Hubert
/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: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory

Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

2015-03-28 Thread Hubert
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 wanted to say. A cycleway is mandatory if has one of the signs 237, 240 or 241 AND it is parallel to a road. A sign by itself doesn't make

Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

2015-03-28 Thread Hubert
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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

2015-03-28 Thread Hubert
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]

Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

2015-03-28 Thread Hubert
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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

2015-03-28 Thread Hubert
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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

2015-03-28 Thread Hubert
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

[Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

2015-03-27 Thread Hubert
and 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

Re: [Tagging] Does oneway:bicycle apply to cycleway=track?

2015-02-25 Thread Hubert
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 thoughts, yours Hubert

Re: [Tagging] sidewalk=* or footway=*

2015-01-21 Thread Hubert
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

Re: [Tagging] sidewalk=* or footway=*

2015-01-20 Thread Hubert
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- From: fly

Re: [Tagging] sidewalk=* or footway=* (Hubert)

2015-01-20 Thread Hubert
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

[Tagging] sidewalk=* or footway=*

2015-01-19 Thread Hubert
=*, 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:Hubert87/DoubleRepresentation [2] http

Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes=designated|... vs cycleway:lanes=lane|...

2015-01-13 Thread Hubert
+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 imagic@gmail.com: 2015-01-13 13:38 GMT+01:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de: I would not. IMO bicycle:lanes is an access Tag while cycleway:lanes

Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes=designated|... vs cycleway:lanes=lane|...

2015-01-13 Thread Hubert
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 and...@shadura.me: Hi, Some places in

Re: [Tagging] Sidewalk tagged on highway=cycleway

2015-01-01 Thread Hubert
+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 osmu715...@gmx.de: Hi, there is a sentence on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dcycleway which says It is also possible to

Re: [Tagging] question: best practices for micromapping ped areas and footpaths?

2014-12-30 Thread Hubert
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 jo...@mac.com: I'm micromapping some public areas, in this case train stations. two questions: 1) there are large open concrete

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

2014-12-23 Thread Hubert
” on the 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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

2014-12-22 Thread Hubert
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional cycletracks)

2014-12-22 Thread Hubert
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 verplicht

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs., optional cycletracks)

2014-12-22 Thread Hubert
as 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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-de] Tag:highway=traffic_signals / wiki page inkonsistnet

2014-11-04 Thread Hubert
Gruß Hubert ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-de] Tag:highway=traffic_signals / wiki page inkonsistnet

2014-11-04 Thread Hubert
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 page inkonsistnet Hey, On Di

Re: [Tagging] sub key for cycle ways

2014-11-03 Thread Hubert
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

Re: [Tagging] sub key for cycle ways

2014-11-01 Thread Hubert
like where the bike lane is not the extreme left/right lane. On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de 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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - cycleway=soft_lane

2014-10-31 Thread Hubert
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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - cycleway=soft_lane

2014-10-31 Thread 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 Hubert

[Tagging] sub key for cycle ways

2014-10-31 Thread Hubert
=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? I’m sorry, if this is a bit confusing. It’s late but I just couldn’t wait writing. Best regard Hubert

Re: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page

2014-10-23 Thread Hubert
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.

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - cycleway=soft_lane

2014-10-21 Thread Hubert
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

Re: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page

2014-10-21 Thread Hubert
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. Regards Hubert

Re: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page

2014-10-08 Thread Hubert
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

Re: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page

2014-10-08 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page

2014-10-07 Thread Hubert
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:osmu715...@gmx.de

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - cycleway=soft_lane

2014-10-07 Thread Hubert
/wiki/Soft_lane Best regards Hubert ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - cycleway=soft_lane

2014-09-21 Thread Hubert
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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - cycleway=soft_lane

2014-09-12 Thread Hubert
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