Re: [Tagging] Segregated foot-cycle path with different surfaces

ag surface=paved Yours Hubert87 Am 23.11.2020 um 15:39 schrieb Volker Schmidt: How do I correctly tag this way: OSM way 434742113 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/434742113>, Mapillary image <https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/WA2lBoDF91ISfRY983d4wf> It's a segregated bidirec

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

(Two replies is one) Am 03.05.2020 um 15:29 schrieb Andrew Harvey: On Sun, 3 May 2020 at 23:14, Hubert87 mailto:sg.fo...@gmx.de>> wrote: I like the idea of using "buffered". "doorzone" to me, is a pretty laoded and subjective. I don't see it as

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

Meant to also add a discriptive tag, like cycleway:right:parking_lane=right/left/both/no/yes Am 03.05.2020 um 15:12 schrieb Hubert87: I like the idea of using "buffered". "doorzone" to me, is a pretty laoded and subjective. Maybe something like: cycleway:right=lane

Re: [Tagging] Doorzone bicycle lanes

I like the idea of using "buffered". "doorzone" to me, is a pretty laoded and subjective. Maybe something like: cycleway:right=lane cycleway:right:lane=exclusive (cycleway:right:buffered=right/left/both/no) cycleway:right:buffered:right=yes/no/0.3(m) Yours Hubert87 Am

Re: [Tagging] bicycle:lanes and foot:lanes on foot-cycle-paths

Hi, I did some thing similar, too. highway:lanes=cycleway|footway surface:lanes= width:lanes= in addition to all the normal (fallback) tags. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/27131742 Didn't use bicycle:lanes=designated|no or foot:lanes=no|designated though. But I like it. I'm going to also d

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

Am 29.01.2020 um 21:11 schrieb Hubert87: Just my two cents from germany: In general hw=cycleway  <> hw=path + bicycle=designated; hw=footway<> hw=path + foot=designated; hw=bridleway <> hw=path + horse=designated; For combinded foot and cycle paths: hw=path + bicycle

Re: [Tagging] highway=path for *all* mixed foot/bicycle highways?

;popular demand" and not a planned one. Path itself also does not imply anything about it's surface. For that use "surface=ground/compacted/asphalt/concrete/etc.", (*duh*) Of course I'm not very familiary with mapping conventions in the new world, so please take this at yo

Re: [Tagging] Continuous Sidewalk or Cycleway

hen old railroad tracks are convered to cycle paths. Lastly, I'd rather see this as new values for traffic_calming instead of junction. Yours hubert87 Am 23.01.2020 um 21:09 schrieb Florimond Berthoux: Hello, How to map a continuous sidewalk or cycleway ? In order to solve this questio

Re: [Tagging] mesh bicycle network

. Currently, the network relation for node networks is used only for maintenance en checking network integrity. Oh, thank you for clarifying. I think the network in Bremen is a preference route system. Sounds about right. Yours Hubert87 Vr gr Peter Elderson Op do 12 sep. 2019 om 22:49 schreef Hubert87

Re: [Tagging] mesh bicycle network

information about the network character somehow. A simple lcn=yes won't do that. Yours Hubert87 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] mesh bicycle network

just tagging its highways with lcn=yes. But I'd really looking for a different solution. Can someone point me to a possible solution? Yours Hubert87 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] documenting cycleway=crossing

Hi, it feels a bit wrong to me to use cycleway=crossing on a highway=footway or highway=path, as described on the wiki page . I might have been doing it wrong all the time but I always use hw=footway + footway=crossing hw=cycleway + cyc

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

sorry, that mail 5min ago, was send by accident. Am 17.03.2019 um 04:19 schrieb Andrew Davidson: On 17/3/19 10:18 am, Hubert87 wrote: No, not exactly the same: cycleway:[left|right|both|none]:oneway=no implies oneway:bicycle=no, but no vice versa. cycleway:[left|right|both|none]:oneway=[-1

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

Am 17.03.2019 um 04:19 schrieb Andrew Davidson: Nice straw man you've made there. I didn't say that either of those forms of tagging imply the other. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/taggin

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

In general, I agree with Martin. Am 16.03.2019 um 23:43 schrieb Andrew Davidson: On 15/3/19 9:30 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: these tags are stating different things though: How are they different? If I have a oneway=yes way: A--->B oneway:bicycle=no tells me that bicycles can pass along

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

, Hubert87 <mailto:sg.fo...@gmx.de>> wrote: Also, have you considered, how you would tag a dual-cycleway on the left-hand side of a one way carriageway?(eg cycleway:left=? + cycleway:left:oneway=no) https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/cycleway%3Aleft%3Alanes Cheer

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

, have you considered, how you would tag a dual-cycleway on the left-hand side of a one way carriageway?(eg cycleway:left=? + cycleway:left:oneway=no) Yours Hubert87 (P.S. I'm assuming right-hand-traffic) ___ Tagging mailing list Ta

Re: [Tagging] Wild changes to wiki pages changing the cycleway tagging scheme

I also regard "cycleway:left=lane" "cycleway:left:oneway=-1" as the currently preferred method and have been mapping/tagging like this for a while now. Just my two cents Hubert87 Am 15.03.2019 um 00:12 schrieb althio: Discussed: maybe there https://lists.openstr

Re: [Tagging] Possibility to draw parking properties as an area

I might have missed it, but what about area:highway = parking_lane https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Street_area Am 09.03.2019 um 17:07 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: sent from a phone On 9. Mar 2019, at 14:03, Paul Allen wrote: I see extending the parking area to the h

Re: [Tagging] StreetComplete 10 / foot=yes on residential

horses), like opposite direction <https://www.google.de/maps/@50.9401298,6.9532164,3a,75y,354.53h,97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-BF_bbPXwIa2GD2DghRJZQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656> of your first example. Also people using routers should apply common sense, too. Or stay at home. Hubert87 Am 15.02.2019 um

Re: [Tagging] crossing=cycleway as a node

Hi yopaseopor, I think that     highway=crossing     crossing=uncontrolled is also the excepted way of tagging for cycleways crossings. You could add     bicycle=yes to that (crossing) Node to mark that this is bicycle crossing (,too). Hubert87 Am 26.01.2019 um 15:17 schrieb Volker Schmidt

Re: [Tagging] Busways

Am 02.11.2016 um 20:01 schrieb Tijmen Stam: On 02-11-16 19:33, Hubert87 wrote: Hi, I think you should consider the access rights (access=no, bus=yes) and the road classification (highway=service/unclassified) as two separate things. First, I'm not proposing something new, I'm pr

Re: [Tagging] Busways

to me in regard of the highway=unclassified/service in use. Also, did you consider using "bus/ptv=designated" instead of bus=yes? Yours Hubert87 P.S.: (btw, for clarification: last time I checked, "unclassified" isn't used were one can't classify a road - that&#x

Re: [Tagging] bus route with reversing

Nor really, you still need a way to add "bus=yes" to the "pt=stop_position"-node. The "pt=platform"-node doesn't have it. At least if you follow the wiki. However, one could also derive this from the "route=bus" relation, of which the platform is a

Re: [Tagging] Bus bays

where a highway=bus_stop is used together with public_transport=stop_position, so highway:right=bus_bay might be problemtic. Yours Hubert87 Am 28.08.2016 um 16:15 schrieb Michael Tsang: Dear all, What is the commonly-used practice to denote if there is a bus bay at a public_transport=stop_position