On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 10:49:18 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
> On 4/3/2011 9:38 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
> > * Ed Hillsman
> > [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_s
On 4/3/2011 9:38 AM, Phil! Gold wrote:
* Ed Hillsman [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. It makes the associat
* Ed Hillsman [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 those would qualify as "si
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 pe
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
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 o
2011/3/25 Josh Doe :
> 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
>
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 stops/
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 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.n
We also need to add cycleways to associatedStreet relations then and bus
stops and their platforms and parking lanes. What roles do we assign for
those?
Polyglot
2011/3/25 David Paleino
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:07:12 +, SomeoneElse wrote:
>
> > What I don't yet understand is the workflow as
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:07:12 +, SomeoneElse wrote:
> What I don't yet understand is the workflow associated with the
> "Sidewalk_as_separate_way" proposal. Through the window I can see a
> road which has a (currently unmapped) footpath/sidewalk along both sides
> for part of its length and
On 25/03/2011 15:32, Josh Doe wrote:
In the meantime you can see my area
here:
http://osm.org/go/ZZcEbGicI-
Thanks - I'll have a look at that.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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:
http://osm.org/go/ZZcEbGi
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 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 propo
2011/3/25 Richard Fairhurst :
> 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
-type of relat
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 autom
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 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.
2011/3/25 Richard Fairhurst
> 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.
>
2011/3/25 David Paleino
> 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 yelling the l
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
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 n
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 ta
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 t
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:
> 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 proposi
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
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 4:37 AM, David Paleino 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 maximum
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 o
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
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 personally don't care much about routing. I'm an old-fashioned guy who
p
No need to CC me, thanks.
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 20:00:34 -0400, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:15 PM, David Paleino
> wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> > as promised, I came back with an "official" proposal.
> >
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:15 PM, David Paleino wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> as promised, I came back with an "official" proposal.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as_separate_way
"In particular, for blind people, it's important to have precise
information when wal
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:10:36 +, Craig Wallace wrote:
> On 24/03/2011 20:15, David Paleino wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> > as promised, I came back with an "official" proposal.
> >
> >
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as_separate_way
> >
> > I tried to summa
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:59:12 +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:53:12 -0400, Josh Doe wrote:
>
> > [..] Like I've said on the talk page, I believe this and the other sidewalk
> > proposal can coexist, although I prefer your proposed scheme.
>
> I think that too; however, I beli
On 24/03/2011 20:15, David Paleino wrote:
Hello everybody,
as promised, I came back with an "official" proposal.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as_separate_way
I tried to summarize what my ideas are, and why I don't believe that tagging
the main road is any goo
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:53:12 -0400, Josh Doe wrote:
> [..] Like I've said on the talk page, I believe this and the other sidewalk
> proposal can coexist, although I prefer your proposed scheme.
I think that too; however, I believe the other proposal could be useful for
"temporary tagging", much l
David, thanks for putting this up. Like I've said on the talk page, I
believe this and the other sidewalk proposal can coexist, although I
prefer your proposed scheme.
Regards,
-Josh
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 4:15 PM, David Paleino wrote:
> Hello everybody,
> as promised, I came back with an "offi
Hello everybody,
as promised, I came back with an "official" proposal.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Sidewalk_as_separate_way
I tried to summarize what my ideas are, and why I don't believe that tagging
the main road is any good.
To summarize here: to tag a sidewalk:
*
40 matches
Mail list logo
