On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:30:36 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Burnside Street: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44706996
(including adjacent ways extending from 2nd Avenue on the east to 24th
Place on the west)
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 6:39 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 08:40:13 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Anthony
o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Paul Johnson
ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
The way I've been
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:51:49 -0400, Anthony wrote:
I apologize for not being more clear. By please don't do that I do
not mean to revert all instances of Paul using bicycle=destination. I
hope you will take a look at your uses of bicycle=destination yourself,
and self-revert any places where
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:51:49 -0400, Anthony wrote:
I apologize for not being more clear. By please don't do that I do
not mean to revert all instances of Paul using bicycle=destination. I
hope you will take a look at
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
I'm fully entitled to disagree with you, especially when I've given clear
reasons for doing so.
I've been polite to you in all communications.
It is you that has solely been abusive. Not only to me, including private
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:26:41 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
You need to understand that your interpretation of the law is probably
wrong, and listen to sources such as the Bicycle Transportation
Alliance, whose email I copied to this list.
Rather than trusting a bunch of non-lawyers over at
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:26:41 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
You need to understand that your interpretation of the law is probably
wrong, and listen to sources such as the Bicycle Transportation
Alliance, whose email I
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:26:41 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
You need to understand that your interpretation of the law is probably
wrong, and listen to sources such as the Bicycle Transportation
Alliance, whose email I
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
And/Or maybe Nathan can give a few examples of ways which he feels you
have tagged incorrectly?
Burnside Street: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/44706996
(including adjacent ways extending from 2nd Avenue on the east to 24th
On Fri, 20 August, 2010 10:00:36 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:20 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
And/Or maybe Nathan can give a few examples of ways which he feels you
have tagged incorrectly?
Burnside Street:
On 10/08/2010 20:31, Paul Johnson wrote:
Having never been exposed to any information to the contrary about Nathan
or California (even after having lived there), I have no reason to
believe it's not fact. You're welcome to provide evidence to the
contrary, but I seriously doubt such exists.
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:27:34 -0400, Anthony wrote:
access=destination means you can get a traffic ticket for disobedience
(or whatever the equivalent is in your jurisdiction).
Which you can in the areas in question.
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 06:41:21 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Paul Johnson
ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 04:26:42 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Bike lanes aren't exclusive either - cars move into them to turn right
(in right-hand-drive
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:08:20 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Dave F.
dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
On 08/08/2010 20:40, Paul Johnson wrote:
The way I've been handling this is to stretch the limits of the
bicycle=destination tag; if it's more major than
On Tue, 10 August, 2010 4:35:27 AM, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 23:12:05 -0700, Simon Biber wrote:
I would use bicycle=destination only if bicycles were officially
discouraged from using the road as a thoroughfare.
Thanks for stating the obvious. Given that in Multnomah and
On 09/08/2010 20:07, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:08:20 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Dave F.
dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
On 08/08/2010 20:40, Paul Johnson wrote:
The way I've been handling this is to stretch the limits of the
Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
The way I've been handling this is to stretch the limits of the
bicycle=destination tag; if it's more major than residential, open to
bicycles,
but lacks shoulders and has narrow lanes or on-street parking, then I tag it
bicycle=destination (unless
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 21:29:59 +0100, Richard Mann wrote:
You can drive on some cycle lanes
[citation needed]
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:56:53 +0200, fly wrote:
Am 29.07.2010 14:38, schrieb Daniel Tremblay:
My need is to give cyclists more info when preparing their rides on
road that are not cycleway (nor NCN, RCN, LCN). I saw the tag
rtc_rate but not find it very intuitive.
We need this kind of tags
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 09:50:02 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Anthony
o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Nathan Edgars II
nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Shoulders are actually more important to pedestrians than cyclists. A
good cyclist won't care
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 04:26:42 -0400, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Bike lanes aren't exclusive either - cars move into them to turn right
(in right-hand-drive countries) and cross them at intersections or to
reach parallel
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Paul Johnson wrote:
Why would this matter?
I don't know
Are there actually places where it's legal to
operate off the hard surface when the road is paved?
Yes
25 years ago in outback Queensland the tightfisted government of the
gerrymander king, Joh Bjelke-Peteresen,
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
The way I've been handling this is to stretch the limits of the
bicycle=destination tag; if it's more major than residential, open to
bicycles, but lacks shoulders and has narrow lanes or on-street parking,
then I tag it
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
The way I've been handling this is to stretch the limits of the
bicycle=destination tag; if it's more major than residential, open to
bicycles, but lacks
On 08/08/2010 20:40, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:38:10 -0400, Daniel Tremblay wrote:
My need is to give cyclists more info when preparing their rides on road
that are not cycleway (nor NCN, RCN, LCN). I saw the tag rtc_rate but
not find it very intuitive.
The way I've been
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 09:33:41 -0400, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Daniel Tremblay
tremb...@gmail.com wrote:
Is a 90km/h primary road safe bikeable?
I know people who would be willing to ride a bicycle on a 55 mph primary
road with no shoulder and one lane in each direction
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:56:20 +0100, Richard Mann wrote:
cycleway=shoulder looks like a good idea for those countries that
routinely have a wide shoulder on country roads (I've seen them in
Ireland; they aren't common in the UK)
Is it really a cycleway, though? If not, it doesn't deserve the
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:38:10 -0400, Daniel Tremblay wrote:
My need is to give cyclists more info when preparing their rides on road
that are not cycleway (nor NCN, RCN, LCN). I saw the tag rtc_rate but
not find it very intuitive.
The way I've been handling this is to stretch the limits of
On 03/08/2010 14:18, Daniel Tremblay wrote:
Yes, I can bike on normal lane and I do it. I don't like however to
find myself on a 90km/h road with no shoulders. This is the kind of
situation I would like to avoid when preparing my trip. This is why
the shoulder indicator would be usefull
I buy Dave's comment (see below).
Forget about the cycleway and bicycle tags and lets develop a shoulder set
of tag then (which was, in the first place, the subject of this
discussion). Mostly informative and not taken into consideration within the
opencyclemap project.
You know, after a third
Hi all,
Did this discussion die out? The following two suggestions seem
pretty sensible:
cycleway=shoulder
(There is no bike lane, but a rideable shoulder).
cycleway=sharrow
(There are marking on the road for bikes, but not an exclusive bike lane).
The term sharrow was unfamiliar to me,
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:30 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
cycleway=shoulder
(There is no bike lane, but a rideable shoulder).
Sure, we could debate the shoulder thing forever, but cycleway=shoulder is
easy, and covers 90% of the reasons for mapping it: so cyclists can
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
cycleway=shoulder
(There is no bike lane, but a rideable shoulder).
cycleway=sharrow
(There are marking on the road for bikes, but not an exclusive bike lane).
Until now, we had a pretty clear definition of
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
Until now, we had a pretty clear definition of cycleway=lane (sharing the
main roads infrastructure) and cycleway=track (along the road but
separated). If you introduce more values, you should clearly explain on the
wiki what is
I give up.
Looks like openstreetmap will not be helpful for me. I will continue to
document cycleways=lane, cycleways=track, *cn_ref as I see them in my
neibourghood but will not try to go further than this.
Back to the primary objective of my suggestion: when I am preparing a
cycling ride on
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Daniel Tremblay tremb...@gmail.com wrote:
For me, bicycle=yes means that it is safe for bicycle or that bicycle is
officialy allowed on that road. Maybe I could apply the tag for the
sharrow definition given in the discussion. Maybe it is the best way to
do it
Nathan Edgars II schrieb:
maxspeed (already there),
Unless it's lower than normal cycling speed this has nothing to do with
cycling.
There is quite a difference between a road with maxspeed=30 or 100 km/h
for a cyclist.
colliar
___
Tagging
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Nathan Edgars II nerou...@gmail.com wrote:
Shoulders are actually more important to pedestrians than cyclists. A
good cyclist won't care if there's a shoulder, but a good pedestrian
must walk against traffic and be prepared to get out of the way if
walking in
On 03/08/2010 14:18, Daniel Tremblay wrote:
For me, bicycle=yes means that it is safe for bicycle
That is incorrect. Safety is subjective...
or that bicycle is officialy allowed on that road.
This is the correct usage for bicycle=yes
Cheers
Dave F.
On 03/08/2010 09:13, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
I'm not sure this is a good idea. cycleway=* should be for something
designated for cyclists.
I agree.
But cyclists aren't required to use the
shoulder (except on some freeways), so cycleway=shoulder is
misleading. (They also aren't required
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
On 03/08/2010 09:13, Nathan Edgars II wrote:
Shoulders are actually more important to pedestrians than cyclists. A
good cyclist won't care if there's a shoulder, but a good pedestrian
must walk against traffic and be
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, Anthony wrote:
Is a 90km/h primary road safe bikeable?
I know people who would be willing to ride a bicycle on a 55 mph
primary road with no shoulder and one lane in each direction (not that
I can think of such a road, other than maybe a few short bridges).
Add in a
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010, Liz wrote:
I can think of plenty and they are bicycle safe - even on the trunk road
with a limit of 110kmh
but they are not high traffic roads, crossing roads are few
http://billiau.net/zoph/photo.php?photo_id=3182
That's on the Cobb Highway.
Shoulder is not rideable
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Daniel Tremblay tremb...@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding my cycleway=no_shoulder suggestion, here are a couple of example
we see often in Quebec, where car and bicycle share the road without
shoulders :
I've posted a message in the newbies forum regarding my need. Those who
responded suggested me to send the discussion to the tagging group. So,
here I am.
My need is to give cyclists more info when preparing their rides on road
that are not cycleway (nor NCN, RCN, LCN). I saw the tag rtc_rate
Am 29.07.2010 14:38, schrieb Daniel Tremblay:
My need is to give cyclists more info when preparing their rides on road
that are not cycleway (nor NCN, RCN, LCN). I saw the tag rtc_rate but
not find it very intuitive.
We need this kind of tags also for cycleways. I know many areas where the
Daniel
cycleway=shoulder looks like a good idea for those countries that
routinely have a wide shoulder on country roads (I've seen them in
Ireland; they aren't common in the UK)
on urban roads (maybe even rural roads with centre lines), you could
do cycleway=tight/critical/spacious, following
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Daniel Tremblay tremb...@gmail.com wrote:
So, if I come back to my little cyclist need, I wonder if I could simply put
cycleway=shoulder. That would show that: there is a shoulder, it is large
enough to accomodate cycling, cycling is authorized on this road,
48 matches
Mail list logo
