Hello Ed,
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 22:26:22 -0400, Ed Hillsman wrote:
The discussion of the sidewalk issue seems to have stopped. I added
some comments in the discussion section of the wiki last week, but
there have been no further comments there or here in nearly a week.
I saw your comments
Hi.
There are two things I would like to make additions to.
1) separate or tag-scheme (the long discussion in general):
I'm one of the people who think, both should be used on a
case-by-case-basis.
Working on a map- and routing-portal for blind people (therefore most
likely a special case of
* Ed Hillsman ehills...@tampabay.rr.com [2011-04-02 22:26 -0400]:
With regard to routing, sidewalks on college campuses, in parks, and
in cemeteries may be interior to a large area bounded by streets,
and as a result some may not have an associated street to use for a
name.
I don't think
On 4/3/2011 9:38 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Ed Hillsmanehills...@tampabay.rr.com [2011-04-02 22:26 -0400]:
Would it work to add a tag associated_street and then simply list the
name of the street? For example, highway=footway,
associated_street=East Fowler Avenue.
This might not be a bad idea.
On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 10:49:18 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 4/3/2011 9:38 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Ed Hillsmanehills...@tampabay.rr.com
[2011-04-02 22:26 -0400]:
Would it work to add a tag associated_street and then simply list the
name of the street? For example, highway=footway,
The discussion of the sidewalk issue seems to have stopped. I added
some comments in the discussion section of the wiki last week, but
there have been no further comments there or here in nearly a week.
I think each of the proposals (sidewalks as separate ways, and
sidewalks as attributes
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:42:37 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On 3/25/2011 4:37 AM, David Paleino wrote:
Routing, not rendering. We don't care about rendering, do you?
We certainly care about rendering. What we perhaps shouldn't care about
is how a specific renderer handles tags.
I
Serge Wroclawski wrote:
With sidewalks as a separate way, you are now stuck with two unoptimal
situations:
a) The sidewalks have no road-associated data
[...]
b) There is a relation
c) There is another method to associate the sidewalk with the highway.
For example, people (especially on
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:37 AM, David Paleino da...@debian.org wrote:
One can take exactly the opposite stance, which is that in order to
help the blind, we should make it as easy as possible to map things
that they care about. Therefore a sidewalk=yes tag would be the
fastest way to get the
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 07:21:51 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
You're proposing a new relation type,
I'm not. I'm proposing to use associatedStreet, which is well-established. My
preference for street is another story. *Entirely*.
a set of associated tags, etc. in support of the sidewalk data.
David Paleino wrote:
Come on, it's like any other relation. If potlatch can't support *ANY*
kind of relation editing, it's not my fault. It's a bug. I don't use
Potlatch, so I can't tell how advanced his support for relations is.
Not good enough.
It is incumbent on you, as someone proposing
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 04:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst wrote:
David Paleino wrote:
Come on, it's like any other relation. If potlatch can't support *ANY*
kind of relation editing, it's not my fault. It's a bug. I don't use
Potlatch, so I can't tell how advanced his support for
David Paleino wrote:
Why, oh why, this seems so out-of-context to me?
I think I already gave a solution: if you want to do it simple, use
sidewalk=*.
If you want to add more details, follow my proposal.
I'm not remotely interested in the merits or otherwise of your proposal. I
don't have the
I've made some significant edits to the proposal, to try and clarify
some things and boil the proposal down to the basics.
I removed a significant portion of David's text, however I think much
of it is valuable, and so would encourage him to pull it out from the
prior revision and put it on the
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 05:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst wrote:
David Paleino wrote:
Why, oh why, this seems so out-of-context to me?
I think I already gave a solution: if you want to do it simple, use
sidewalk=*.
If you want to add more details, follow my proposal.
I'm not
David Paleino wrote:
No, it's up to YOU, as a developer, to support basic OSM things.
Relations are an OSM primitive, and to be considered the official
editor, since you're being hosted on osm.org, you MUST implement them.
That's IMHO, obviously.
It's IYHO but your O would be better if it
2011/3/25 David Paleino da...@debian.org
No, it's up to YOU, as a developer, to support basic OSM things.
Relations are an OSM primitive, and to be considered the official editor,
since you're being hosted on osm.org, you MUST implement them. That's
IMHO,
obviously.
I remember the mob
2011/3/25 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net
David Paleino wrote:
No, it's up to YOU, as a developer, to support basic OSM things.
Relations are an OSM primitive, and to be considered the official
editor, since you're being hosted on osm.org, you MUST implement them.
That's IMHO,
I think he was trying to distinguish between footways (which generally have
their own names) and sidewalks (which generally don't have their own names).
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalks as separate ways
From :mailto:emac...@gmail.com
Date
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 05:38:18 -0700 (PDT), Richard Fairhurst wrote:
[..]
Anyone can map anything in Potlatch, or JOSM, or Merkaartor, or their own
favourite editor, by creating the primitives manually, and adding tags,
using the standard UI. Of course they can.
Yet this isn't always a
I think it would be useful to have a JOSM plugin which works more
generically, such as working with the associatedStreet or proposed
street relation to not only associate sidewalks with streets, but
everything else encompassed by those relations. It could have sets of
rules which would enable
2011/3/25 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net:
David Paleino wrote:
Potlatch 2 _already_ has excellent relation support.
However:
My proposal doesn't use anything special to be implemented in editors.
That's not the point.
Well, somehow it is. He has suggested to use the associatedStreet
I would encourage everyone interested in this to review the proposal
as I've amended it. I've made it clear that the suggestion to use
relations with sidewalks is a related, but separate issue.
The proposal now solely consists of adding the footway=sidewalk and
footway=crossing tags. Further
Er - I'm confused.
We've now got:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as_separate_way
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sloped_curb
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/kerb
I agree, it is confusing. I've used the separate way method quite
extensively in a suburban (subdivision) area. Perhaps I could create
some illustrations, though since I'm not much of an artist it will
probably be just screenshots. In the meantime you can see my area
here:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:06:06 +0100, Jo wrote:
We also need to add cycleways to associatedStreet relations then and bus
stops and their platforms and parking lanes.
Why?
--
. ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
: :' : Linuxer #334216 --|--
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:06:06 +0100, Jo wrote:
We also need to add cycleways to associatedStreet relations then and bus
stops and their platforms and parking lanes.
Ok, I understand it might make sense. A role cycleway for cycleways? But
that's out of scope for this proposal.
For bus
2011/3/25 Josh Doe j...@joshdoe.com:
I agree, it is confusing. I've used the separate way method quite
extensively in a suburban (subdivision) area. Perhaps I could create
some illustrations, though since I'm not much of an artist it will
probably be just screenshots. In the meantime you can
28 matches
Mail list logo
