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

2015-11-28 Thread Hubert
On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 14:31:59 +
Philip Barnes <p...@trigpoint.me.uk> wrote:

> One question, if cyclelane use is compulory, are you allowed to not
> use it if you are overtaking slower cyclists?

It depends on the type of cycle lane in Germany. 
If it's a "strict" (not a legal name) cycle lane (Radfahrstreifen, solid line 
with bicycle marking and blue traffic sign, [1]) it's not allowed to leave the 
cycle way when passing another cyclist. 
If it's a "soft" (again, not a legal name) cycle lane (Schutzstreifen), dashed 
line with bicycle marking and no 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 
[2] 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Schutzstreifen_Schlachthof_Karlsruhe.jpg



___
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
Yes, agreed. A case of lost in translation. For me a cycle lane doesn’t count 
as a cycle way.

 

From: Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Freitag, 27. November 2015 13:20
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable 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. And 
it's on these that I am looking for a way to express the obligation of use.

Hallo Volker.

I'd advise you to map those cycle ways as separate osm ways, even if this is 
still globally disputed. AFAIK, it is quite common in the Netherlands and 
Poland. And I'm also a fan. :)

The fragmentation of the main road way will multiply if you use many different 
tags like 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.

Yours Hubert.

On 27. November 2015 12:30 Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com] wrote:
> Martin, one of the purposes of my detailed mapping (attempts) is that I want 
> to produce a map that  can be used to improve the cycling infrastructure in 
> Padova and also to collect data that improve  routing for cyclists. When you 
> try to do that you realise al kinds of inconsistencies.
> You mention the discrepancy between the law and the reality on the roads, but 
> when you are involved
in an accident, it's the law that counts. That's why I want to insert formally 
correct data. I cannot map the fact that most cyclists even don't know that, by 
law they have to use certsin types of cycleways (and not others).
> Practical example: on one of the main bicycle traffic thoroughfares of Padova 
> (which happens to be  the street with the second highest number of serious 
> accidents in town) they provide a (mandatory)  cycleway which in many places 
> is only one meter wide and also often obstructed by trash collection  
> containers and fallen leaves. The map should contain that data (the trash 
> container and the leaves go into a separate crowdmap).





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
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
On 27. November 2015 10:51 Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com] wrote:
> translated: cyclists have to use cycleways, where they exist. It does not 
> address the question how 
> far away the cycleway can be from a parallel road. 

That simplifies the question a lot.

The tag "cycleway=lane/track" already implies that the use of the cycle way is 
compulsory.
If there is no cycle way, you can add cycleway=no, so that routers know that 
it's OK for bicyclist to use that road and fellow mappers know, that it has 
been checked. Though, this practice is highly disputed.

And in cases of a separate drawn line (case 3. segregated foot and cycle ways) 
just add "bicycle=use_sidepath" to the road way. 

OR don't tag any cycleway=* on the road. (yes, that levees some uncertainty, 
see above.)  A separate way tagged with "highway=cycleway" OR "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


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

2015-11-27 Thread Hubert
Hallo Volker.

I'd advise you to map those cycle ways as separate osm ways, even if this is 
still globally disputed. AFAIK, it is quite common in the Netherlands and 
Poland. And I'm also a fan. :)

The fragmentation of the main road way will multiply if you use many different 
tags like 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.

Yours Hubert.

On 27. November 2015 12:30 Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com] wrote:
> Martin, one of the purposes of my detailed mapping (attempts) is that I want 
> to produce a map that  can be used to improve the cycling infrastructure in 
> Padova and also to collect data that improve  routing for cyclists. When you 
> try to do that you realise al kinds of inconsistencies.
> You mention the discrepancy between the law and the reality on the roads, but 
> when you are involved 
in an accident, it's the law that counts. That's why I want to insert formally 
correct data. I cannot map the fact that most cyclists even don't know that, by 
law they have to use certsin types of cycleways (and not others).
> Practical example: on one of the main bicycle traffic thoroughfares of Padova 
> (which happens to be  the street with the second highest number of serious 
> accidents in town) they provide a (mandatory)  cycleway which in many places 
> is only one meter wide and also often obstructed by trash collection  
> containers and fallen leaves. The map should contain that data (the trash 
> container and the leaves go into a separate crowdmap).





___
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
Hallo Volker,

there is not accepted method to denote that a way is mandatory to use by 
bicyclists, however there are some proposals ([1],[2]) for that. It’s only 
possible to tell a cyclist to stay off a carriage way by tagging 
“bicycle=use_sidepath” on the central osm-way. There a few interpretations to 
this.
1. “bicycle=use_sidepath” can only be used if there is a separately drawn 
sidepath (highway=cycleway/path/footway) present. This is how it was intended, 
as a weaker alternative to bicycle=no. It basically tells a router not to use a 
way and look for alternatives unless there is none, or it "cost" way too much 
time. As where bicycle=no tells a router to never ever use that way.
2. “bicycle=use_sidepath” can also be used if there is an additional 
"cycleway=lane/track" tag. It basically tells a router to not use this way 
unless there is also a "cycleway=lane/track" tagged.

IMHO we should only use it according to the first interpretation.

Now to your questions:
> A) In the case of a road with two cycle lanes with mandatory use (they do 
> have the official 
> cycle path signs - case L1a in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle) 
> how do I tag 
> correctly the mandatory use on the highway:
> 1) by bicycle=use_sidepath 
> 2) by bicycle=use_cyclelane (or bicycle=use_sidelane?)
Neither one. If the mandatory use is due to the presence of a traffic sign, you 
can tag the traffic sign itself. highway=* + cycleway=lane + 
cycleway:traffic_sign=*. (This is useful anyway).
You can also use one of the proposals [1] or [2]. The first one is "safer". Or 
you can use the distinction between cycleway:bicycle=official/designated ; 
cycleway:bicycle=official/yes or cycleway:bicycle=designated/yes. The last one 
is most common in Germany and Poland as far as I know, but it also has it's 
disadvantages.

> B) In the case of a oneway road with one mandatory opposite-direction cycle 
> lane (they do
> have the official cycle path signs in the direction opposite to the car flow 
> - case L1a in 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle)?
> bicycle:backward=use_sidepath (or use_cyclelane or use_sidelane)
> plus
> bicycle:forward=yes (or bicycle:forward=share_carlane?)
Did you mean case M3b?
If so you can use
highway=* + oneway=yes + oneway: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/Obligatory_access_suffix
[2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/obligatory_usage



___
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
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
On 26. November 2015 18:41 Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com] wrote:
> n answer to my first question you both suggest to map a bicycle lane (which 
> is separated from the 
> main carriageway only by a white painted line) as a separate way. To me this 
> seems not correct. 
If you read that, then I must have been expressing myself the wrong way.
You only use "bicycle=use_sidepath" if (and only if) you have a separately 
drawn cycle way that is mandatory to use. That doesn’t mean that you have to 
map a mandatory cycle way as a separate way. And in the 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
On 26. November 2015 19:10 Townsend [mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com] wrote:
>In addition to the textual answers already provided, I'd certainly find it
>really useful if people could link to an area that is already mapped and tagged
>as per a particular suggestion
That's a good advice.
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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2015-11-26 Thread Hubert
On 27. November 2015 07:55, Marc Gemis [mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com]. wrote:
>and
>
>compulsory
>
>highway=x
>cycleway=lane
>bicycle:lanes=no|designated
>vehicle:lanes=yes|no

"bicycle:lanes=no|designated" doesn't seem correct because there are certain 
situations (at least in Germany) where you may use the "car" lane as a 
cyclists. Most notable for turning purposes or when the cycle lane is 
impassable. (The last argument probably falls under the "use your brain" 
category.) But it's still the same issue use_sidepath 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


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

2015-10-29 Thread Hubert
>On 29. Oktober 2015 10:34 Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] wrote:

> 

> Bicycle lanes are lanes of travel, 

This depends on your definition of “lanes”

 

> and may or may not be exclusive to bicycle traffic, and may or may not be the 
> outermost lane of travel. 

Agreed. But what exactly do you mean by “Bicycle lanes”? designated cycle ways 
with at least priority for cyclists (dedicated bike lanes, protected bike 
lanes, cycle tracks, cycle paths, mandatory and advisory cycle lanes) ? Or 
shared use lanes with motor vehicles and some form of bike infra (bicycle 
pictograms, sharrows, suggestive lanes, smurf lanes)

 

> Discounting this and only including cycleway=lane doesn't indicate which lane 
> the bike lane is,

True, but why do you bring “*=lane” to the party (lanes=*, *:lanes=*) now?

 

> and will cause lane guidance to be incorrect 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.openstreetmap.org/questions/2339/restricted-lanes-with-lanes-tag

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/lanes_General_Extension#The_issues_with_the_lanes_tag

 

___
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
Thanks for the link. 

I agree for „lanes=*“.

 

But “*:lanes=*” is still a different story. One could also use “*:lanes=*” on 
segregated foot- and cycleways. For example

highway=path

degregated=yes

bicycle=designated 

bicycle:lanes=yes|no

foot=designated 

foot:lanes=no|yes 

 

Although this example is pretty trivial.

 

Hubert87

From: Steve Doerr [mailto:doerr.step...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Donnerstag, 29. Oktober 2015 12:21
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

 

UN convention, apparently:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2011-September/008578.html

Steve



On 13/10/2015 12:40, Paul Johnson wrote:

But why?  It seems tools aren't expecting lanes tags with more lanes than in 
the lanes count.  Seems exceptionally arbitrary and very incomplete to count 
only lanes that a sedan can use.

 

On Tue, Oct 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:lanes=yes|no|yes

bicycle:lanes=yes|designated|yes

is correct, too. 

 

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, 13. Oktober 2015 13:06
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: [Tagging] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

 

Seems like some of the examples are wrong.  For example, M2c...

 

Wouldn't it be better and more consistent relative to other mode-specific lanes 
to tag it as...

 

oneway=yes

cycleway=lane

lanes=3

motor_vehicle:lanes=yes|no|yes

bicycle:lanes=yes|designated|yes

 

 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

 






___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging





  _  


 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus> Avast logo

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 
www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>  

 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[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 highway-osm-way.
Right now, the default in my proposal is that sideways which are separated
by a curb only are tagged as subtags to the central way, while sideways
separated by scrubs, grass, ditches, etc. are drawn as separate osm-ways.
>From my experience, this seems to fit the mapping for the majority of
mappers. However both extremes (only subtag, always separated) are possible.


I would especially  like to ask you for comments on the following topics:
*   Is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element
a problem for my suggestion?
*   Use of footway=sidewalk as an exception from *=sidepath.
*   Use of footway:right/left/both=sidewalk on highway=road instead of
sidewalk=right/left/both.

I'm looking forward to your responses

Hubert87
<>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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:

Hallo,

I have been working on some ideas
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sidepath_tagging_sche
me
) to 

 

Hallo,

 

I think that you made a small mistake in the "Example tagging".  The numbers 4 
& 5 should be switched on the picture.

 

 

regards.

 

m

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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 on main road may be 
>preferred in different places, depending on local consensus" to 
>"tagging on main road is always preferable in some situation".

This is something I want to discuss. Right now my proposal has 3 styles
(subtags only (near), always as separate ways (far) and mixed). It's still
possible to tag sidepaths separated by curbs only as a separate drawn and
vice versa. The mixed style is a compromise, because in my experience form
following this mailing list and the german forum far sidepaths are most
commonly tagged as separate ways while near sidepaths are preferred as tags
on the 'main' road.

I personally like my sidepaths to be tagged as separate ways, as it can hold
more information most notably the course of a way. But I have also noticed
the need for the data of those ways on the central ways. Mostly for maps of
larger areas (one city). It is this conflict I want to resolve.  

>Inventing new tags to describe combined and segregated footway and 
>cycleway (both with its own surface) is complicated even in case of 
>using separate way for this structure.

I don't do that. 

>Tagging it on main road, just because on certain distance there is no 
>strip of grass separating it from main road would make necessary to use
ridiculous tags.
>Even in case of long stretches of road, footway and cycleway separated 
>only by curbs tagging it as one element is apoor idea.

So no mixed style!?

>In extreme case - there is one place in my city with cycleway between 
>two footways. Cycleway, footways and road are all separated by curbs.
>Good luck with tagging it as tags on the main road 
>(cycleway:right:central:surface=asphalt?).

No, since tagging on the "main road" already needs a higher level of
abstraction, one would only tag that the cycleway on the right site of the
road has an asphalt surface. (cycleway:right:surface=asphalt). The placement
of the cycleway in regard to the footway(s) would be uncalled-for. 
In addition that situation would also be a problem when tagging the sidepath
using highway=path + segregated=yes + bicyle=designated + foot=designated

>BTW, in my area there is a recent trend to tag footways and cycleway as 
>separate ways - even in cases of footways and cycleway separated solely 
>by a painted line on surface.

That's a different story and reminds me on a conflict of separately dram
turn lanes and the tag turn:lanes=* from about a year ago.

Yours Hubert

<>___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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?
Could you post a picture/screenshot of the problem?
But from what I believe to read from this correspondence, it’s seems to be a 
problem with JOSM or OSMAND and not whit the definition of the "lanes=*" key of 
the "*:lanes=*" suffix.

On 21. Oktober 2015 12:19 Paul Johnson [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] wrote:

>Sure, when you're drafting out the lanes in JOSM or rendering them in Osmand, 
>your lane counts are >off by however many bike lanes there are if you don't 
>explicitly map them in the lanes count and tag >accordingly.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2015-10-13 Thread Hubert
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:lanes=yes|designated|yes

is correct, too. 

 

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, 13. Oktober 2015 13:06
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: [Tagging] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

 

Seems like some of the examples are wrong.  For example, M2c...

 

Wouldn't it be better and more consistent relative to other mode-specific lanes 
to tag it as...

 

oneway=yes

cycleway=lane

lanes=3

motor_vehicle:lanes=yes|no|yes

bicycle:lanes=yes|designated|yes

 

 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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 [mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org] 
Sent: Dienstag, 13. Oktober 2015 13:40
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle

 

But why?  It seems tools aren't expecting lanes tags with more lanes than in 
the lanes count.  Seems exceptionally arbitrary and very incomplete to count 
only lanes that a sedan can use.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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: [Tagging] sidewalk width

 

On 24/09/2015 7:06 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote:

How to tag the width of the sidewalks when using the tagging scheme:

highway=...
sidewalk=both|left|right

 

There are few uses of 

sidewalk:width=

and just a handful of 

width:sidewalk=

 

Any other ways of tagging without drawing separate ways for sidewalks?

 


The 'sidewalk' on one side may have a different width to that of the other 
side. So 
width:sidewalk=   

maybe best as one could then use
width:sidewalk:left= 
and
width:sidewalk:right= 

? 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki

2015-07-28 Thread Hubert
FYI: I just took the liberty of changing the highway=footway definition back to 
the pre Feb 18th Version.

-Original Message-
From: Andy Townsend [mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com]
Sent: Samstag, 25. Juli 2015 15:25
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] access=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
 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.
 Today in OSM it's documented, only the ways signposted with a traffic
 sign should be tagged with *=designated (as described on the cited
 page access=designated and much more).
 The only wiki page with such a strict formulation I could find is the
highway=footway page [1] : highway=footway is used for signposted
paths designated for pedestrians only. Signposted footpaths are primarily
common in residential areas, but may also exist out-of-town in
recreational environments, parks etc.. .
 But in this context one must agree that highway=footway is equal to
highway=path, foot=designated. Also this was only changed recently by
Geow on June 28th.
 Bevor that it read : highway=footway is mainly used for residential
paths designated for pedestrians only.
 And till Feb 18th : The tag highway=footway is used for mapping minor
pathways which are used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians. Which is
the definition I prefer.

I believe that the recent edits to the highway=footway page by Geow
resulted in it not reflecting the usage of the key - it seems to be
telling people how to use a key not documenting how they do use it. I did
raise it with the user concerned (1) (and interestingly other users have
raised similar problems there too) but frankly have no wish to get into a
wiki edit war or even a discussion with someone who doesn't even edit
the map (or at least, not in that name) (2). It's also perhaps worth
mentioning that the 18th Feb change (which you - and I - preferred the
previous version to) was made by a wiki editor who's since been blocked
(3).

I only spotted the wiki change because someone spotted a large number of
footways that I had surveyed being changed into paths without any
information to give a clue as to physical type.  We've seen other similar
instances where well-meaning but ignorant wiki edits have resulted in
well-meaning but ignorant tag correctors corrupting map data (changing
wood=deciduous to leaf_type=broadleaved was one).

Personally, to try and make sense of pages in our wiki I tend to view the
history and look at the last edit by a sensible person, taking
particular care to read the previous version to anything labelled e.g.
cleanup.

Cheers,

Andy


(1) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Geow

(2) http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Geow

(3) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xxzme


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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 - preferred the previous version to) was made by a wiki editor
 who's since been blocked (3).

 (3) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xxzme
attachment: winmail.dat___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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, because both ways are still equally designated to
 pedestrians and cyclist in both situations.

Today in OSM it's documented, only the ways signposted with a traffic
sign should be tagged with *=designated (as described on the cited page
access=designated and much more).

The only wiki page with such a strict formulation I could find is the 
highway=footway page [1] : highway=footway is used for signposted paths 
designated for pedestrians only. Signposted footpaths are primarily common in 
residential areas, but may also exist out-of-town in recreational environments, 
parks etc.. .
But in this context one must agree that highway=footway is equal to 
highway=path, foot=designated. Also this was only changed recently by Geow on 
June 28th.
Bevor that it read : highway=footway is mainly used for residential paths 
designated for pedestrians only. 
And till Feb 18th : The tag highway=footway is used for mapping minor pathways 
which are used mainly or exclusively by pedestrians. Which is the definition I 
prefer.

Other wiki pages don't use a strict formulation, but are using words like 
often or typically to relativize the definition.
[2] access page: A preferred or designated route for a specific vehicle type 
or types, often marked by a traffic sign.
[3] bicycle page : Where a way has been specially designated (typically by a 
government) for bicycle use
[4] access=designated page : Typically it is used on ways legally dedicated 
to specific modes of travel by a law or by the rules of traffic.
 

Now you'd like to apply the tag *=designated also to ways which are
constructional intended for the specific traffic but without a traffic
sign, right?

I object this due to the reasons:
- this is changing an existing tag definition, it's not downwardly
compatible (designated would then no longer mean signposted)
- it will therefore lose the possibility to distinguish between ways what
are signposted and that what are not.

Using designated for signposted ways only is IMO a very bad choice, since 
it is in contrast to the lingual meaning of the word designated. 

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=footway 
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access 
[3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle
[4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:access%3Ddesignated



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki

2015-07-25 Thread Hubert
On 25. Juli 2015 01:36 Troxel [mailto:g...@ir.bbn.com] wrote:
Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com writes:

 Hmmm.
 There is a problem.
 We (cyclists) would like to be able to distinguish between ways that
 can be used legally by bicycle, and
 1) that do not have any traffic sign saying this and
 2) those where there is some kind of traffic sign saying explicitly
 that this way can be used by cyclists

If that's what you want, map the signs.  If a way can be legally used,
then it shoudl be tagged as such, whether that's by observing signs or
reading the law.

My thoughts exectly.

 I assumed that this was the difference between
 1) bicycle=yes
 and
 2) bicycle=designated

No.  bicycle=designated is an official notion that bicycles are someone
more authorized than cars or foot and are to be considered the primary
use of a way.   An example would be a path that had signs saying that
while pedestrians are allowed, they must yield to bikes.

+1

 Your proposal is well intended, but would water down the meaning of
 designated and would 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 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
Hallo,

during a discussion within the german forum [1], I have been pointed to the
description box of the access=designated wikipage [2].
It reads A way marked for a particular use..

I would like to change it to A way designated for a particular use or A
way intended for a particular use.. Probably the latter one.

The reason is, that the word marked implies that a way is ,well, marked
with a traffic sign or by road paintings, which is not necessarily true. 
Also the topic general use case is not that strictly 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=designated

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki

2015-07-24 Thread Hubert
Ø  access=designated is not what you want.

For clarification, I don’t use ‘access’=designated but ‘bicycle’=designated, 
‘foot’=designated etc. Just like the wiki page sais : “The exact key/value 
combination  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access access=designated 
should never appear on an object”

 

Ø  What is wrong with using the tag bicycle=yes ? Bicycles are 'permitted' .. 
but not necessarily marked by/on the roadway. 

IMO “bicycle=yes” or “foot=yes” are not enough, also permitted is not correct 
since these road parts are exclusively designated for a specific road use (as 
you put it.)

 

I will try to explain my issue with the example of two segregated cycle- and 
footway. One with a traffic sign [1] and other one without a traffic sign [2]

Both ways are designated for pedestrians and cyclists, each with their own part 
of the way.

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, because both ways are still equally designated to 
pedestrians and cyclist in both situations.

 

Hubert

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Z241GetrennterRadUndGehweg.png

[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:GetrennterRadUndGehweg.jpeg

 

From: Warin [mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Freitag, 24. Juli 2015 16:20
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki

 

On 24/07/2015 11:42 PM, Hubert wrote:

Well, there a ways that are “designated” for specific road users but are not 
marked explicitly and must be recognized through their design.

 

I would put that as 

There are ways that are intended for a specific road use... 

For example sidewalks. They are designated for pedestrians and could tag – 
ignoring the tag it as a sub key discussion – as highway=footway (implying 
foot=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.

 

True. access=designated is not what you want. 

What is wrong with using the tag bicycle=yes ? Bicycles are 'permitted' .. but 
not necessarily marked by/on the roadway. 

Hubert

 

Picture 1 : 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:RadwegOhneBenutzungspflicht.jpg

Picture 2 : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:GetrennterRadUndGehweg.jpeg

 

From: jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me [mailto:jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me] 
Sent: Freitag, 24. Juli 2015 15:05
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki

 

I agree with Volker.  To me designated meant “what it is says on the roadside 
signage”.  Usually seen where there are unique or special circumstances 
restricting access.

 

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

 

From: Warin mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com 
Sent: ‎Friday‎, ‎24‎ ‎July‎ ‎2015 ‎13‎:‎50
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org 

 

On 24/07/2015 9:30 PM, Hubert wrote:

Hallo,

during a discussion within the german forum [1], I have been pointed to the 
description box of the “access=designated” wikipage [2].

It reads “A way marked for a particular use.”.

I would like to change it to “A way designated for a particular use” or “A way 
intended for a particular use.”. Probably the latter one.

The reason is, that the word “marked” implies that a way is ,well, marked with 
a traffic sign or by road paintings, which is not necessarily true. 

Also the topic ”general use case” is not that strictly 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?

 


For me, Yes. 

Meaning I object. 


If it is not marked .. than how do you (or anyone) know that it is 
'designated'? 

Ummm 'marked' could mean it is 'marked' on some plan or other rather than 
'marked' by a traffic sign or by road painting ... but I'd think if it is not 
marked locally then the 'designation' will be ineffective. 
OSM is supposed to reflect what is 'on the ground' so marked is appropriate. 
Particularly by a traffic sign or by road painting.

Happy to be persuaded otherwise... 
Could you provide a link to the German discussion? That may help. 






___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki

2015-07-24 Thread Hubert
Well, there a ways that are “designated” for specific road users but are not 
marked explicitly and must be recognized through their design.

For example sidewalks. They are designated for pedestrians and could tag – 
ignoring the tag it as a sub key discussion – as highway=footway (implying 
foot=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://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:GetrennterRadUndGehweg.jpeg

 

From: jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me [mailto:jonat...@bigfatfrog67.me] 
Sent: Freitag, 24. Juli 2015 15:05
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] access=designated wiki

 

I agree with Volker.  To me designated meant “what it is says on the roadside 
signage”.  Usually seen where there are unique or special circumstances 
restricting access.

 

Jonathan

http://bigfatfrog67.me

 

From: Warin mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com 
Sent: ‎Friday‎, ‎24‎ ‎July‎ ‎2015 ‎13‎:‎50
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org 

 

On 24/07/2015 9:30 PM, Hubert wrote:

Hallo,

during a discussion within the german forum [1], I have been pointed to the 
description box of the “access=designated” wikipage [2].

It reads “A way marked for a particular use.”.

I would like to change it to “A way designated for a particular use” or “A way 
intended for a particular use.”. Probably the latter one.

The reason is, that the word “marked” implies that a way is ,well, marked with 
a traffic sign or by road paintings, which is not necessarily true. 

Also the topic ”general use case” is not that strictly 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?

 


For me, Yes. 

If it is not marked .. than how do you (or anyone) know that it is 
'designated'? 

Ummm 'marked' could mean it is 'marked' on some plan or other rather than 
'marked' by a traffic sign or by road painting ... but I'd think if it is not 
marked locally then the 'designation' will be ineffective. 
OSM is supposed to reflect what is 'on the ground' so marked is appropriate. 
Particularly by a traffic sign or by road painting.

Happy to be persuaded otherwise... 
Could you provide a link to the German discussion? That may help. 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2015-04-15 Thread Hubert
 for optional 
cycle tracks. That'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
 cycleway:smoothness=good/intermittent

+1

Ideally, I would like to be able to represent all 4 cases 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://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
[1] : 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Zeichen_239_mit_Zusatzzeichen_10-2210.svg


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2015-04-14 Thread Hubert
Oh sorry, my grammar is off badly.
Let me try again with the question simplified:

How would you tag:
1) Picture 1 with the blue traffic sign
2) Picture 1 without the blue traffic sign
3) Picture 2 with the blue traffic sign
4) Picture 2 without the blue traffic sign

I'm particularly interested 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 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com
 I must admit that I do not fully understand your text.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2015-04-13 Thread Hubert
Hallo.

 

Sorry for not answering for a while. I had/have to concentrate on my
studies.

As for bicycle=obligatory/mandatory, I can see why there is so much
objection for introducing a new value, but I still think that the current
use of bicycle=official/designated/yes is less optimal than it could be.

If some you feels up for it, I would like to hear your thoughts on the
following separated cycle way with and without the corresponding traffic
sign.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Separated_cycle_and_foo
t_path.jpg)

The way I see it, it is “official” and “designated” for cyclist in both
cases, at least from the wording. However, the question remains whether it
should also be tagged as “bicycle=official/designated” or “bicycle=yes” or
something else.

I would also like to ask you to considered the “normal” situation
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/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: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

 

Hallo fellow mappers and bicycle enthusiasts, 

I have created a proposal to tag obligatory roadside cycle ways with
bicycle=obligatory.

 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/obligatory_usage
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/obligatory_usage

The proposals is in its early stages right now, but I would like to get your
ideas 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2015-03-28 Thread Hubert
I'm not shy for a discussion about cycleways in general, but that’s not my goal 
here. Please mail me directly if you like.

As for designated and official, that’s kind of the problem I have with the 
actual use of those keys. 
designated was introduced to refine the highway=path (if I read correctly). 
So any way that is meant for cyclist is designated, even when it is not 
mandatory to use (or is this were I'm wrong.)
official on the other hand has the contradiction already built in the 
proposal, were it says [...] for ways legally dedicated to specific modes of 
travel by a law or by the rules of traffic [...]. In some countries like 
Germany such a usage right is also mandatory [...]. 
If you are able to recognize a cycleway without one of those three sign, it is 
still a true cycleway and you have the right to use, but it is not mandatory. 
The proposal is wrong at that point. 

I'm going to work on an example using a segregated cycle and footway to explain 
my problem further. I hope someone can help me resolve the problems I'm having.

 -Original Message-
 From: 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 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 a cycleway mandatory.
 
 
 You have something confused there. Germany has two (forgetting about
 lanes for now) kinds of cycleways:
 
 - such without mandatory use provision (used to be andere
 Radverkehrsanlagen), there does not seem to be any formal signage for
 these and it could be argued that they don't really exist.
 
 - such with a mandatory use provision indicated with one of the already
 mentioned three signs.
 
 Mandatory in this context means you have to use the cycleway instead of
 a nearby normal road surface/area.
 
 For the later there is a list of reasons why you can be exempt from the
 mandatory use provision, for example that there is no other alternative
 surface you can cycle on (the example you cited), your vehicle doesn't
 fit on the cycleway, the cycleway doesn't actually go to where you want
 to go and so on. In other countries this is called common sense.
 
 Now even though I yet have to see an instance of the first kind of
 cycleway that can't be modelled with normal access tags, if they are
 even necessary in the first place, the community has accepted that in
 Germany bicycle=official instead of designated is used for the 2nd kind
 of cycleway so that they could theoretically be differentiated.
 
 Further if you want to model the situation even better (nearby road
 surfaces are already nearby in OSM data) you can now add
 bicycle=use_sidepath to the alternative surface that you are not
 allowed to ride on (even though I personally consider that a waste of
 perfectly good bits).
 
 There is simply no point in both a practical and theoretical sense for
 splitting the official value in to official and in to
 I_think_this_might_be_mandatory given that the later is purely
 circumstantial.
 
 Simon



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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 is used for all way with a blue traffic sign or 
even all cycleways which are official.


 -Original Message-
 From: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch]
 Sent: Samstag, 28. März 2015 13:25
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory
 
 
 I have to say that this adds yet another value to the bicycle tag that
 doesn't solve any problems (note: if at all it naturally should be
 mandatory however that is not my primary concern).
 
 We have bicycle=designated and bicycle=official for mandatory use
 cycleways (where the concept of such exists). official already tries
 to capture a nuance in a specific countries law that is lost on most
 (and probably doesn't exist in reality) trying to differentiate further
 doesn't make any sense (and we already have use_sidepath thrown in to
 the mix).
 
 Simon



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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]
 Sent: Samstag, 28. März 2015 14:33
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory
 
 Please give an example of a cycleway in Germany (given that this is a
 specific German argument) with a blue sign (237, 240 or 241) that is
 not mandatory use (and no I don't mean that you could go to court, and,
 if you win, get the sign removed based on arguments that the way should
 not be signposted as such).
 
 Simon



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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 have to think about that a 
little more. 

 From: Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com] 
 Sent: Samstag, 28. März 2015 11:32
 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory
 
 1) Please no new tag that breaks existing tagging.

 2) Please can you give me the missing link in your proposal (But it 
 remains disputed (Insert Link) whether that obligatory cycleway has to be 
 mapped as a separate way ...). I am interested in that for a different 
 purpose which regards the mandatory-ness of the bicycle lanes in Italy 
 (they are legally cycle-paths with mandatory use).

 3) For me it seems that the bicycle=use_sidepath is the correct approach, 
 exactly because it is impossible to decide whether a cycleway is mandatory
 or not without saying with respect to what road the requirement is correct. 
 Let's construct a case: you have two parallel roads. In the middle between 
 the two there is a cycleway that is labelled with mandatory. How do you 
 determine the weighing of the roads for your bicycle routing. Either on the 
 cycleway the mandatory tag has a value that defines which of the roads 
 are affected, or the roads themselves are labelled with 
 bicycle:use_sidepath=yes/no (note that this is slightly different from 
 bicycle=use_sidepath, but this is less important)
 Volker 
 (Italy)


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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 bicycle=obligatory but 
bicycle=designated in my mind. It like you said, routers will find the next 
available way for cyclists.

 From: Bryce Nesbitt [mailto:bry...@obviously.com] 
 Sent: Samstag, 28. März 2015 00:26
 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory
 
 How close is tagging the road bicycle=no, with an adjacent 
 highway=cycleway?
 If the cyclists are prohibited from the road, the routers will find the 
 next best route, which may or may not be the adjacent cycleway.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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 cycleway implies designated. Why do people tag 
highway=cycleway + bicycle=yes (8036 uses)? 
From what I learnd people want to differentiate mandatory cycleways from 
others. Right now they are using the difference between (official vs.) 
designated vs. yes for that. I'll add some more numbers to the proposal page 
later.
While bicycle=use_sidepath does solve the routing problem, there is no (easy) 
way for renders to use that information on the cycleway itself.
bicycle:obligatory=yes is a alternative, but it can only win second place for 
me. 


 From: Mateusz Konieczny [mailto:matkoni...@gmail.com] 
 Sent: Samstag, 28. März 2015 00:55
 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory
 
 Adding new value to a bicycle tag is a terrible idea. There is a widespread  
 support for bicycle=designated
 and retagging cycleways to bicycle=obligatory would result in a breaking 
 data.
 Note also existence of bicycle=use_sidepath that is solving this problem 
 without breaking data.
 New key, something like bicycle:obligatory=yes would be acceptable.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] RFC - obligatory usage - bicycle=obligatory

2015-03-27 Thread Hubert
Hallo fellow mappers and bicycle enthusiasts, 

I have created a proposal to tag obligatory roadside cycle ways with
bicycle=obligatory.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/obligatory_usage
The proposals is in its early stages right now, but I would like to get your
ideas 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2015-02-25 Thread Hubert
Hey Tobias.

The implied problem in your question is how to interpret a (main) tag on an 
osm_way. Does it only apply to the carriageway/driving lanes or to the whole 
street which also includes cycleways, sidewalks, etc ? Just consider the 
width=* or lanes=* tags.

Yet, I wouldn't go so far 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



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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/listinfo/tagging


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 [mailto:lowfligh...@googlemail.com]
 Sent: Dienstag, 20. Januar 2015 01:05
 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
 Subject: Re: [Tagging] sidewalk=* or footway=*
 
 Please have a look into the archive of this list and the discussion of
 the sidewalk proposal.
 
 It was designed to replace footway=both/left/right/none but transition
 is slow.
 
 JOSM just introduced a validator warning offering an automatic change.
 
 Speaking for myself, I did not care to change a whole city and with
 your mentioned numbers a well-designed software will still look for
 both tags.
 
 
 
 Am 19.01.2015 um 16:44 schrieb Hubert:
  Hallo,
 
  I am working on some ideas for a proposal[1]to double represent
  cycletracksand footways.It is at the very beginning  at the moment
 and
  I haven’tmade upmy mindabout how to do that.
 
  While I was researchingdifferentstuff, I noticed that the proposals
 to
  footway=*[2]and sidewalk=*[3] haven’t been voted on.Yet, it sais“Do
  not use***footway*=*on other
 
 than___highway_http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway=___foo
  tway_http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway”in
  a warning box ontheKey:footway wiki page [4].It appears that this box
  has been added by a user only3 days after posting a comment on
  thediscussionpage. [5]
 
  Also aoverpass query[1]as of2015-01-14 has return around 40.000 uses
  offootway=*on highway=*roads*only, excludinghw=footway/cycleway/path.
  Howeverthere are500.000 usesof sidewalk=*.While this shows a majority
  usefor sidewalk=*, I can’t seewhy
  footway=* should bedeprecatedfor *roads*nor did I find arelated
  discussion about this.
 
  Could someone point meinthe right directionformore information on
 that
  topic?
 
  Yours
 
  Hubert
 
 
 [1]___http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Hubert87/DoubleRepresent
 
 ation_http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Hubert87/DoubleRepr
  esentation
 
  [2]___http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_
 
  [3]___http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Footway_
 
  [4]___http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:footway_
 
  [5]___http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:footway_
 
 
 
  ___
  Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
 
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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, 20. Januar 2015 00:56
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] sidewalk=* or footway=* (Hubert)

 

On 19/01/2015 23:19, Warin wrote:


To me, sidewalk is American English. 
British English is more footway?
 footpath is common Australian English. 


In English English* footpath means either that thing at the side of the road 
that Americans call a sidewalk or a path not at the side of the road 
primarily intended for pedestrians (but less wide than a pedestrianised 
street).  Footway means the same as footpath essentially, but less in 
common usage and more usually used in legal contexts.

The use of sidewalk to describe the thing at the side of the road was 
discussed on talk-gb and was generally accepted there even by those (like me) 
who tend not to like Americanisms because it's not ambiguous, whereas the 
alternatives (footpath and pavement) both are.

Cheers,
Andy

* I can't speak for the Scots or the Welsh or any others.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] sidewalk=* or footway=*

2015-01-19 Thread Hubert
Hallo,

I am working on some ideas for a proposal [1] to double represent
cycletracks and footways. It is at the very beginning  at the moment and I
haven't made up my mind about how to do that. 

While I was researching different stuff, I noticed that the proposals to
footway=*[2] and sidewalk=* [3] haven't been voted on. Yet, it sais Do not
use footway=* on other than highway
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway =footway
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dfootway  in a warning
box on the Key:footway wiki page [4]. It appears that this box has been
added by a user only 3 days after posting a comment on the discussion page.
[5]
Also a overpass query [1] as of 2015-01-14  has return around 40.000 uses of
footway=* on highway=*roads* only, excluding hw=footway/cycleway/path.
However there are 500.000 uses of sidewalk=*. While 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:Hubert87/DoubleRepresentation
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk
[3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Footway
[4] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:footway
[5] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:footway

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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
 defines es the type. So one could have cycleway:lanes:forward=none |
lane
 and bicycle:lanes:forwad= yes | designated , for example.


That's correct. AFAIK it is common understanding, that some kind of way
with access tags bicycle=designated and vehicle=no (or similar) is more
or
less identical to a cyclelane.

My problems with cycleway:lanes=...|lane|none|... are:
* The value none is not specified for the key cycleway
* The tag cycleway=lane tells use, there is a cyclelane, but it doesn't
tell us where.

Best regards,
Martin




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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 the wiki mention cycleway:lanes:* tags, and those are
indeed used in a few places (31 uses currently). It seems to me these
tags are obsolete and have been replaced by bicycle:lanes:*, is that
correct? Should I probably mass-replace them?

-- 
Cheers,
  Andrew

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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 use {{Tag|sidewalk|right}}/*=left [on
highway=cycleway] to indicate which side of the segregated path
pedestrians should walk on (where right/left is relative to the way's
direction).

It was originally contributed by ulamm and modified by RobJN after a
short discussion (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:RobJN).
But this is the opposite of what is written on

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sidewalks

The inclusion of sidewalk information makes it easier to provide
effective pedestrian routing, and in particular good narrative
descriptions of pedestrian routes along motorised roads. The sidewalk
tag is not needed on non-motorised thoroughfares, for example
highway=footway/cycleway/path/brideway/track. 

I think there better solutions to the problem than ulamm's.

If there are no further arguments, I will remove the sentence from the
first citation. What is your opinion on that?

Cheers
Tobias

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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 areas for pedestrians, but there are
also covered walkways through them as well. 

http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=19/36.38380/139.07281

I mapped the open sections as highway=pedestrian+area=yes, while I
traced the covered walkways (that connect the bus shelters) and tagged
it as building=roof  highway=footway

I'm not sure if I should just create single area of highway=pedestrian
and put the building=roof over it or what. Also, the roof doesn't
render as a building, but as a white pedestrian area. I think if it is
tagged at building=roof, I should ask -carto to render it as a
building, but it logically remains a footpath as well.  

I'm unsure of how to tag it all. I assume I have made a mistake mixing
pedestrian and footway tags. 


2) what is the best practices for tracing sidewalks? when following a
sidewalk along a road, and you reach an intersection, does the footpath
way cross the road via the sidewalk (continuing along the road, or does
it turn the corner, following the sidewalk encompassing the block, and
the sidewalks are separate ways ( rather than a node)  that join
disparate footpaths at the corners of the intersection? 

This is an intersection mapped with footpaths following the sidewalks
around the block, with sidewalk ways connecting the corners at the
intersection. 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=20/36.42339/139.05830


I'm guessing for simplicity, the way follows the street through the
intersections, but to map the sidewalk as a way would require
segmentation of the ways anyways, so following the sidewalk around the
corner seems to be a cleaner choice, especially with the heavy paint
work here in Japan for sidewalks. 


Javbw
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2014-12-23 Thread Hubert
Hallo, 

I didn’t want to bring it up on the discussion page yet, but I’m working a way 
to double represent road adjacent cycle ways/ cycle tracks as part of the road 
way and also on the separate  way.

It is far from being ready for representation, but it just fits the discussion 
right now. It has some ideas for distinguishing “near” cycle tracks (separated 
by a curb only) and “far” ones, too. My ideas are being discussed on the German 
mailing list and can be found on this wiki page: 
http://wiki.osm.org/wiki/User:Hubert87/DoubleRepresentation

 

As for having “cycleway=track” 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, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs. optional 
cycletracks)

 

 

2014-12-23 8:17 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:

cycleway=track

I propose to treat this tag as a special case of fixme - it indicates 
some sort of cycleway parallel to road, without any additional details.

In theory it is possible to add tags that specify surface, side of road,
width by tags like cycleway:track:left:surface, but it is ridiculous.

Especially specifying geometry (where cycleway is) is
nearly impossible (and sometimes impossible in any sane way -

sometimes cycleway is next to road but distance changes).


These things are trivial for tagging as a separate way 
(with highway=cycleway with normal set of tags). Especially 
geometry is defined in a standard way, not by some ridiculous tags.



completely agree to everything here. Also adding tags for parallel ways to the 
main highway would require enormous splitting fragmentation on the main 
highway if you start to map the details, leading to a less maintainable map.

cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[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
bicycle=obligatory instead of cycleway= optional since it is more of an
access problem, than a type problem. (I also don't like cycleway=opposite)
After all the only difference is where one may or must ride. The cycle way
itself does look the same, except for the missing sing.

On Montag, 22. Dezember 2014 02:20 Ulrich Lamm ulamm.b...@t-online.de
wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 I've written a proposal for the tags cycleway=obligatory and
 cycleway=optional.
 
 Now I hope for your comments.
 
 Ulrich

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2014-12-22 Thread Hubert
I would confirm this. 

Except  Mofas (German abbreviation for Motor Fahrrad) don’t count as bicycle in 
germany. They may use cycle way  in rural areas (outside of Cities, Towns, 
Villages) or if it is explicitly allowed 
(http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Zusatzzeichen_1022-11.svg).

 

Yours 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 fietspad i.e. compulsory cycle track. When the cycle track runs 
adjacent to a road the intention is clear, but the sign is interestingly also 
used for cycle paths through the middle of the countryside with no adjacent 
road. One might interpret this as you MUST follow this path, even if it goes 
in the wrong direction for you

In Dutch law a snorfiets (light motorbike with pedals, max. 25 km/h) is 
equivalent to a bicycle, but a proper moped (max. 45 km/h) is a different class 
of vehicle. A snorfiets (called a mofa in OSM - is that a German term?) 
must follow the same rules as cycles. In some areas a moped is expected to use 
cycle tracks (the round blue sign shows both a cycle and a moped) but in other 
areas mopeds must follow the roads.

There is also a non-mandatory cycle track which is a path on which it is 
permitted to cycle. Snorfietsen can use these paths as well of course, but 
only in in pedal mode (unless they are electric).

Colin

 

On 2014-12-22 10:54, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,
 
   what is the legal situation in different countries - is Germany one
of a very small number of countries that has this concept of if there
is a certain type of cycleway than cyclists must not use the road, or
is this quite common?
 
Bye
Frederik

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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

2014-12-22 Thread Hubert
Well, you don’t need it for routing purposes (if bicycle=use_sidepath is used 
in a certain way). But there are cases where you want do render “compulsory” 
and “optional” cycle ways in a different ways (e.g. dark blue and light blue). 
But in order to do that you need the information. Either 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, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Obligatory vs., optional 
cycletracks)

 

 

 

2014-12-22 14:50 GMT+01:00 Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com:

I think the only need for 'obligatory cycleway' is to remove bicyclist from 
certain roads! e.g.

I'm bicycling north to south.. there is an obligatory cycleway 1000 kms west of 
me ..
Do I have to use it? No. Totally unreasonable.
Or is it only obligatory for the adjacent road? Yes. In which case the road can 
be tagged bicycle=no ...

 

No. If - for example - you need to turn left on the next crossing and the 
adjacent cycleway is separated from the main road so that it is not possible to 
turn left from the cycleway, you are allowed to switch to the main road and 
drive on it in order to turn left. So bicycle=no is never correct in such 
situation.

Best regards,

Martin

___
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
Hey,

On Di 04.11.2014 16:42 Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote:

 Ich hatte mal überlegt ob man das durch eine relation lösen könnte.

 D.h. alle Signale die zu einer Kreuzung und einer Steuerung unterliegen zu
einer Relation 
 zusammenfassen. Damit wäre die zuordnung zu einer Kreuzung gegeben. Dann
gäbe es auch die 
 möglichkeit noch:
 
 - Ampelphasen (Wegen der statistischen 1/2 Ampelphase Wartezeit)
 - Laufzeiten z.b. 8-16:00
 etc

 zu Dokumentieren. Nur so mal ins unreine gesprochen

Das halte ich für einen gangbaren Weg. 
Meine Ideen dazu: 
Wenn dann die Relationen so eingesetzt werden, dass man zu einer Ampel
kommt, alle anderen Ampeln der gleichen Relation auf dem Weg über die
Kreuzung nicht mehr gezählt werden. Eine ähnliche Relation könnte man dann
auch für Fußgänger/Radfahrer übergänge nutzen. (zweimal hintereinander
highway=traffic_signals + crossing=signals oder highway=crossing +
crossing=signals)
Im Zweifelsfall hat man dann aber mehrere Relationen pro Kreuzung.
Außerdem könnte man so auch eine Grüne Welle darstellen/simulieren. 

Weiß jemand ob die Ideen mit dem Junction-Proposal im Widerspruch stehen? 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Junction

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 04.11.2014 16:42 Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de wrote:
  
   Ich hatte mal überlegt ob man das durch eine relation lösen könnte.
  
   D.h. alle Signale die zu einer Kreuzung und einer Steuerung
   unterliegen zu
  einer Relation
   zusammenfassen. Damit wäre die zuordnung zu einer Kreuzung gegeben.
   Dann
  gäbe es auch die
   möglichkeit noch:
  
   - Ampelphasen (Wegen der statistischen 1/2 Ampelphase Wartezeit)
   - Laufzeiten z.b. 8-16:00
   etc
  
   zu Dokumentieren. Nur so mal ins unreine gesprochen
  
  Das halte ich für einen gangbaren Weg.
  Meine Ideen dazu:
  Wenn dann die Relationen so eingesetzt werden, dass man zu einer Ampel
  kommt, alle anderen Ampeln der gleichen Relation auf dem Weg über die
  Kreuzung nicht mehr gezählt werden. Eine ähnliche Relation könnte man
  dann auch für Fußgänger/Radfahrer übergänge nutzen. (zweimal
  hintereinander highway=traffic_signals + crossing=signals oder
  highway=crossing +
  crossing=signals)
  Im Zweifelsfall hat man dann aber mehrere Relationen pro Kreuzung.
  Außerdem könnte man so auch eine Grüne Welle darstellen/simulieren.
  
  Weiß jemand ob die Ideen mit dem Junction-Proposal im Widerspruch
  stehen?
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Junction
  
  Gruß
  Hubert
  
  
  ___
  Tagging mailing list
  Tagging@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] sub key for cycle ways

2014-11-03 Thread Hubert
Indeed, Point 2 is also a very widely given situation in Germany. Also in cases 
where there are dedicated left turn cycle lanes. (Between the left turn lane 
and the through lane for cars.). But the question is, whether we should abandon 
cycleway=* tagging on the main road in favor for, let us 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

 

From: Mateusz Konieczny [mailto:matkoni...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Samstag, 1. November 2014 22:34
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Subject: Re: [Tagging] sub key for cycle ways

 

2. the cases where the bike lane is in the middle of the road is limited - 
bicycle lane in 
the middle is standard before advanced stop line (to be on the left side of 
right-turn) - 

at least in Poland


3. “cycleway=track” would look funny using that scheme - cycleway=track is 
anyway

not compatible with detailed tagging

 

2014-11-01 14:18 GMT+01:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de:

Sure, but I think it is best to do that in addition and not instead of 
“cycleway=*“ tagging. For one it takes more effort, 2. the cases where the bike 
lane is in the middle of the road is limited. (not counting parking lanes). 3. 
“cycleway=track” would look funny using that scheme. Also adding more data 
about the lane is imo easier with a namespace based tagging scheme of 
“cycleway:*=*.

On Sa, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Paul Johnson  mailto:ba...@ursamundi.org 
ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

Can we move towards using the lanes tagging used for every other mode already?  
It's much more precise and can deal with situations like where the bike lane is 
not the extreme left/right lane.

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Hubert  mailto:sg.fo...@gmx.de 
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, CZ:cyklistický jízdní pruh didn’t get approved, I’m 
thinking of introducing a sub key for that. (Like many of you already 
suggested.)

As a start I’m thinking of “cycleway=lane + lane=soft_lane” for that purpose.

However just a key for that one occasion doesn’t seem logical, so a set of keys 
defining different types of “on lane”/”on road surface” cycle infrastructure 
should be developed, to keep the tagging consistent or to create a structured 
concept.

In order to do that, I’m thinking of introducing “lane=strict_lane, soft_lane, 
suggestive_lane” for lane like cycle ways where bicycles are ‘encouraged’ to 
stay on one side of the road and “shared_lane=sharrows, pictogram, busway” for 
roads/lanes where bicyclists are not separated from other traffic.

The in my opinion the main problems in that idea are the use of 
“lane=suggestive_lane” and “shared_lane= busway.

“lane=suggestive_lane” because it is in contrast of the current tagging as 
“cycleway=shared_lane” in the Netherlands. At least as far as I can remember. 
I’m also not sure whether “smurf lanes” in the UK are tagged as 
“cycleway=shared_lane”. 

 “shared_lane= busway” since this is currently tagged as “cycleway=share_ 
busway”. I think that in favor of structure, “shared_lane= busway” should be 
allowed. However, I haven’t made up my mind about that yet, or whether 
“cycleway=share_ busway” should be deprecated or just be discouraged.

This would leave “cycleway=track, lane, shared_lane, opposite_track, 
opposite_lane, opposite” as the main values, “lane=strict_lane, soft_lane, 
suggestive_lane” and “shared_lane=sharrows, pictogram, busway”.

Not part of the sub key discussion:

As an addition one could say that a “cycleway=track” is also a lane like cycle 
infrastructure, which would make it a “lane=track” sub key. 

Also any “cycleway=opposite(_*)” could be represented by, for example, 

“highway=* + 

oneway=yes + 

oneway:bicycle=no +

cycleway=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


___
Tagging mailing list
 mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] sub key for cycle ways

2014-11-01 Thread Hubert
Sure, but I think it is best to do that in addition and not instead of
“cycleway=*“ tagging. For one it takes more effort, 2. the cases where the
bike lane is in the middle of the road is limited. (not counting parking
lanes). 3. “cycleway=track” would look funny using that scheme. Also adding
more data about the lane is imo easier with a namespace based tagging scheme
of “cycleway:*=*.

On Sa, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:30 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:

Can we move towards using the lanes tagging used for every other mode
already?  It's much more precise and can deal with situations 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, CZ:cyklistický jízdní pruh didn’t get approved, I’m
thinking of introducing a sub key for that. (Like many of you already
suggested.)
As a start I’m thinking of “cycleway=lane + lane=soft_lane” for that
purpose.
However just a key for that one occasion doesn’t seem logical, so a set of
keys defining different types of “on lane”/”on road surface” cycle
infrastructure should be developed, to keep the tagging consistent or to
create a structured concept.
In order to do that, I’m thinking of introducing “lane=strict_lane,
soft_lane, suggestive_lane” for lane like cycle ways where bicycles are
‘encouraged’ to stay on one side of the road and “shared_lane=sharrows,
pictogram, busway” for roads/lanes where bicyclists are not separated from
other traffic.
The in my opinion the main problems in that idea are the use of
“lane=suggestive_lane” and “shared_lane= busway.
“lane=suggestive_lane” because it is in contrast of the current tagging as
“cycleway=shared_lane” in the Netherlands. At least as far as I can
remember. I’m also not sure whether “smurf lanes” in the UK are tagged as
“cycleway=shared_lane”. 
 “shared_lane= busway” since this is currently tagged as “cycleway=share_
busway”. I think that in favor of structure, “shared_lane= busway” should be
allowed. However, I haven’t made up my mind about that yet, or whether
“cycleway=share_ busway” should be deprecated or just be discouraged.
This would leave “cycleway=track, lane, shared_lane, opposite_track,
opposite_lane, opposite” as the main values, “lane=strict_lane, soft_lane,
suggestive_lane” and “shared_lane=sharrows, pictogram, busway”.
Not part of the sub key discussion:
As an addition one could say that a “cycleway=track” is also a lane like
cycle infrastructure, which would make it a “lane=track” sub key. 
Also any “cycleway=opposite(_*)” could be represented by, for example, 
“highway=* + 
oneway=yes + 
oneway:bicycle=no +
cycleway=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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
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
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 mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] sub key for cycle ways

2014-10-31 Thread Hubert
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 didn’t get approved, I’m
thinking of introducing a sub key for that. (Like many of you already
suggested.)
As a start I’m thinking of “cycleway=lane + lane=soft_lane” for that
purpose.
However just a key for that one occasion doesn’t seem logical, so a set of
keys defining different types of “on lane”/”on road surface” cycle
infrastructure should be developed, to keep the tagging consistent or to
create a structured concept.
In order to do that, I’m thinking of introducing “lane=strict_lane,
soft_lane, suggestive_lane” for lane like cycle ways where bicycles are
‘encouraged’ to stay on one side of the road and “shared_lane=sharrows,
pictogram, busway” for roads/lanes where bicyclists are not separated from
other traffic.
The in my opinion the main problems in that idea are the use of
“lane=suggestive_lane” and “shared_lane= busway.
“lane=suggestive_lane” because it is in contrast of the current tagging as
“cycleway=shared_lane” in the Netherlands. At least as far as I can
remember. I’m also not sure whether “smurf lanes” in the UK are tagged as
“cycleway=shared_lane”. 
 “shared_lane= busway” since this is currently tagged as “cycleway=share_
busway”. I think that in favor of structure, “shared_lane= busway” should be
allowed. However, I haven’t made up my mind about that yet, or whether
“cycleway=share_ busway” should be deprecated or just be discouraged.
This would leave “cycleway=track, lane, shared_lane, opposite_track,
opposite_lane, opposite” as the main values, “lane=strict_lane, soft_lane,
suggestive_lane” and “shared_lane=sharrows, pictogram, busway”.

Not part of the sub key discussion:
As an addition one could say that a “cycleway=track” is also a lane like
cycle infrastructure, which would make it a “lane=track” sub key. 
Also any “cycleway=opposite(_*)” could be represented by, for example, 
“highway=* + 
oneway=yes + 
oneway:bicycle=no +
cycleway=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
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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 [mailto:sg.fo...@gmx.de] 
Sent: Freitag, 12. September 2014 12:21
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - cycleway=soft_lane

 

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://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


Re: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page

2014-10-21 Thread Hubert
Pre up: I have worked with him on the soft_lane proposal - results pending.
I think his intentions are good and that he just takes the be bold part of
the wiki too seriously, or the changes he makes are too large.
That said, I believe that talking to others is an important part of a
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.

Regards 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 for the help and the links. That was my opinion, too.

I asked, because the use is not clear by just reading the definition and not
looking at the examples. 

highway=road + cycleway=track + bicycle=use_sidepath together, without an
additional highway=cycleway OSMWay (for example) seem 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 be better if the wiki stated that 
the compulsory cycleway is drawn as a separte way. I think you are right. I 
could changed that in the wiki. Unfortunately the user Ulamm has changed the 
wiki (for the worse in my opinion) so I'll send him an email before I make any 
changes.

Cheers

 

PeeWee32

 

2014-10-08 12:34 GMT+02:00 Hubert sg.fo...@gmx.de:

Thanks for the help and the links. That was my opinion, too.

I asked, because the use is not clear by just reading the definition and not 
looking at the examples. 

highway=road + cycleway=track + bicycle=use_sidepath together, without an 
additional highway=cycleway OSMWay (for example) seem 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




-- 

Verbeter de wereld. Word mapper voor Openstreetmap 
http://www.openstreetmap.org .

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


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]
 Sent: Samstag, 4. Oktober 2014 20:05
 To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: [Tagging] Vandalis on access page
 
 Hi,
 
 I want to mention that user ulamm is not just doing vandalism on the
 osm-db, but also on the wiki.
 
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Aaccessdiff=1076
 542oldid=1076413
 
 He is changing the information for Germany, where this is not true so
 far as I know.
 
 Now he is claiming this in discussions.
 
 Related to sidewalk-tagging he is doing the same: modify and than claim
 his proposal was right.
 
 You can also find suspicious modifications on [1], [2], [3], [4] and
 [5].
 
 Please bann him.
 
 Cheers,
 Tobias
 
 [1]
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Ahighway%3Dcyclew
 aydiff=1078542oldid=1056509
 [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dcycleway
 [3]
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:De:Description:Cycleway:Tr
 ack
 [4]
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attributierung_von_Stra%C3%9Fen_in_
 Deutschland
 [5]
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/Radverkehrsanlagen_karti
 eren
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - cycleway=soft_lane

2014-10-07 Thread Hubert
Hallo.

 

First of all, thank you to everyone  how commented on the proposal and
helped me to improve it. Since there are no more additions in the last days
(and I don't know what else I could add) if have change the status to
Voting. The page can be found here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/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
First of all: Thanks for all the comments on the proposal, so far.

I have incorporated a lot of ideas into the proposal and I have restructured
the page it a little, since there were many of comments/addition concerning
cycle way infrastructure and tagging semantics in generals, which were
really 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
Subject: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - cycleway=soft_lane

 

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://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


[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://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging