Why should we need to tag the part of the path inside road area
specifically (e.g. as footway=connection), but not the part of the
track inside the road area?
(e.g. as path=connection)
Yes, why, that I asked myself too! Why, use it everywhere. It could be used
everywhere.
That is why we
On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 at 21:55, Allroads wrote:
> Draw this image over the example, JOSM changes (not uploaded) drawn in.
> https://i.postimg.cc/t70p6WXm/Neubr-ckcrossing.png
> The area:highway=footway is correctly drawn in, but the footway is all
> footway=sidewalk, your still walking on the
https://i.postimg.cc/c43VzBtk/squarelivingstreet.jpg
Took the wrong link.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
https://i.postimg.cc/J41D2GSJ/pedestriansquare.jpg
[6]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/416303537
I made a mistake. i thought it was a pedestrian square, but it is a
livingstreet, so a T connection from steps to middle livingstreet
carriageway.
This need a *=connection value tag.
Markus example:
Let's use a nearby example: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/86205950.
It does not matter if the stairs are parallel or not!
Draw this image over the example, JOSM changes (not uploaded) drawn in.
https://i.postimg.cc/t70p6WXm/Neubr-ckcrossing.png
The area:highway=footway is
Sorry for the late feedback, Markus! Thanks for considering my thoughts.
> Wouldn't this mean that any footpath leading into a road would need to
be split for its last few metres, like the last 3 m of the path here?:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/413988097
I believe so, yes. While this
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 at 11:22, Allroads wrote:
>
> Then there is a tag as placement=transition.
>
> This have also a kind of connection link function.
>
> [...]
>
> If we think about it further, where more does this tag fit?
The two tags are similar, but different:
The key placement gives
Then there is a tag as placement=transition.
This have also a kind of connection link function.
When we split a road by a traffic island we use placement=transition for
that part from middle of the road to middle of the lane.
(1) placement
Many thanks for your thoughts, Nick!
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> I would propose that under an expansive definition it be thought of this way:
> a "footway link" is a path connecting pedestrian-accessible ways that is not,
> itself, a centerline of a designated
Looks very nice! I have some different concerns about the curbs, but don't
want to derail. Is there discussion about that curb tagging schema
somewhere?
Overall, I think the concept of overlaying areas, centerlines, and links
between them is a good one.
On Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 3:28 AM Allroads
: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - footway=link
Looks good. I think mapping the lowered kerb separately for simple exits is a
bit overdone.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Looks good. I think mapping the lowered kerb separately for simple exits is
a bit overdone.
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op za 23 nov. 2019 om 12:28 schreef Allroads :
> I worked out a visualisation image.
> From the situation I linked in my earlier post.
>
>
I worked out a visualisation image.
>From the situation I linked in my earlier post.
https://i.postimg.cc/jqJSxT1w/service-crosssing-text.png
Allroads.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
+++1
I map a lot of walking routes. Walking route relations use many virtual
footways. In the old days, when sidewalks were seldom mapped, you entered the
road. Now many sidewalks are available as pedestrain ways or areas, but these
do not form a complete linked network, so you often have to
I'm a big fan of this proposal and like others I think it could be useful
in many scenarios. Expansion beyond connecting sidewalks to streets would
be great!
I would propose that under an expansive definition it be thought of this
way: a "footway link" is a path connecting pedestrian-accessible
Now your questions @ Markus.
Your example:
Example (to be displayed with a fixed-width font):
┃ ┆ ┃
┃ ┆ ┃ <- driveway
┃ ┆ ┃
━━┛ ┆ ┗━━
┄┄┄1┄┄┄ <- sidewalk
─┆─
2
The variation of drawing and setting tags.
1. People draw in the carriageway road as a wayline. Wayline middle of the
road. Exactly, where it is.
1.1 Then they decided that there is a sidewalk, on the right, tagging
sidewalk=right, this says there is somewhere a sidewalk on the right next to
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 13:54, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> the issue with steps being represented too long is not related to the
> proposal of adding a specific subtag. I generally map highway=steps only for
> the (approximated) actual projection of the steps (first to last riser of
> each
Am Mi., 20. Nov. 2019 um 11:35 Uhr schrieb Markus :
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2019, 04:43 Joseph Eisenberg,
> wrote:
> > Doing this for every intersection between a path and road, or lower
> > classification road with a high classification road, would be a large
> > amount of extra work for mappers, so
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019, 04:43 Joseph Eisenberg, wrote:
>
> I'm skeptical about the need to tag this differently.
>
> If we do this, wouldn't we also need to tag differently a "T"
> intersection of a `highway=residential` into a `highway=trunk`?
>
> Doing this for every intersection between a path
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 23:05, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Markus
>
> Will this fix the "error" of "Footpaths are disconnected from other roads"?
It may, but this really depends on the situation. Could you give me examples?
___
Tagging mailing list
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 23:40, Allroads wrote:
>
> All waylines inside a area:highway=footway footway=sidewalk is a
> highway=footway footway=sidewalk
> When there is a connection to the road, inside the area:highway=footway,
> footwalk=sidewalk is till the barrier=kerb.
I'm unsure if this is a
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 04:24, Clifford Snow wrote:
>
> First off I like this proposal and agree that it be applied more broadly.
> However there is a difference between a motorway=link (and similar) and a
> footway=link. A motorway=link is a physical feature unlike a footway=link. A
>
I'm skeptical about the need to tag this differently.
If we do this, wouldn't we also need to tag differently a "T"
intersection of a `highway=residential` into a `highway=trunk`?
Doing this for every intersection between a path and road, or lower
classification road with a high classification
First off I like this proposal and agree that it be applied more broadly.
However there is a difference between a motorway=link (and similar) and a
footway=link. A motorway=link is a physical feature unlike a footway=link.
A footway=link is more of an attempt to bridge vector representation of a
+1
Make the proposal cover all non-road ways (footway, cycleway, path, bridleway,
etc)
While we may not imagine a use-case for all of them, it is *far better* to have
it standardized so mapping is similar - and when the issue comes up for a
mapper in an unexpected situation, it’s there
When there should be a footway=link
then there should also be a
path=link
cycleway=link
This is then a new method to tag a virtual T connection on the road.
This must be well thought out.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
All waylines inside a area:highway=footway footway=sidewalk is a
highway=footway footway=sidewalk
When there is a connection to the road, inside the area:highway=footway,
footwalk=sidewalk is till the barrier=kerb.
Only on the road from barrier=kerb till the centerline of the road (wayline)
Markus
Will this fix the "error" of "Footpaths are disconnected from other roads"?
Thanks
Graeme
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 at 07:25, Markus wrote:
> Hello everyone
>
> As the discussion has moved from pedestrian lanes to linking ending
> sidewalks with a road and as there haven't been any more
Hello everyone
As the discussion has moved from pedestrian lanes to linking ending
sidewalks with a road and as there haven't been any more changes or
suggestions to the proposal on pedestrian lanes, i'm opening the vote
on that proposal and requesting comments on the proposal on
footway=link:
30 matches
Mail list logo
