On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
... I think I'll probably go with
highway=cycleway + designation=unknown + source:highway=nearmap.
On second thoughts, actually, when tracing from nearmap I'm just going
with highway=path + surface=paved +
Andre Engels wrote:
That's what I want to say to _you_. Tag what you can actually see. And
where I live, that usually does not include municipial regulations.
Whether a path is meant for cyclists or just for pedestrians, is
something I decide from the path and what's around it,
See
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Andre Engels wrote:
That's what I want to say to _you_. Tag what you can actually see. And
where I live, that usually does not include municipial regulations.
Whether a path is meant for cyclists or just for pedestrians, is
Liz wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009, Dave F. wrote:
a cycleway is a way which is free of bicycle obstructions and that is not
implicit in the path at all.
I disagree. Where a cycleway crosses a vehicular road I would expect to
see cycle barriers to either slow down or preferably
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
highway=cycleway only used for well-engineered public/permanant
cycle tracks (ie could you safely do 20kph on it)
???
It's only a cycleway only if it's signed or documented as a cycleway.
Your logic is flawed:
Cycle
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
The big problem here is that it is completely at odds with what
renderers support, and what the rest of the world is/has been doing.
Fair points, I guess, but I don't think they're big disadvantages.
Firstly, we're not
Hi,
Steve Bennett wrote:
highway=shared_use (or mup [multi-use path] or shared_path)
The point is that these paths generally feature some level of bicycle
and pedestrian use.
I think I am having a deja-vu. The very reason people added the
highway=path proposal (almost exactly 2 years ago)
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree - from the wiki: highway=path is a route open to the
public which is not intended for motor vehicles with four or more
wheels. I think highway=path is perfect. It's plain English.
Yeah, the /examples subpage
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
I think I am having a deja-vu. The very reason people added the
highway=path proposal (almost exactly 2 years ago) was to provide a
value for a nonspecific or multi-use path.
On 14/12/2009 09:15, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Roy Wallacewaldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree - from the wiki: highway=path is a route open to the
public which is not intended for motor vehicles with four or more
wheels. I think highway=path is perfect.
Anthony wrote:
Hmm, the resolution isn't quite as good as I was expecting. Still, I
think I spotted two or three bicyclists near two or three
pedestrians. Looks like shared-use, which means highway=path.
I think this is the wrong way to decide. You're being presumptive.
Just because you
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Hmm, the resolution isn't quite as good as I was expecting. Still, I
think I spotted two or three bicyclists near two or three
pedestrians. Looks like shared-use, which means highway=path.
I think this
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:39 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Hmm, the resolution isn't quite as good as I was expecting. Still, I
think I spotted two or three bicyclists near two or three
pedestrians. Looks like shared-use, which means highway=path.
I think
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Hmm, the resolution isn't quite as good as I was expecting. Still, I
think I spotted two or three bicyclists near two or three
Anthony wrote:
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
mailto:stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:39 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com
mailto:dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
Hmm, the resolution isn't quite
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote:
Anthony wrote:
What makes them genuine bike paths, then?
Signage, or non-copyrighted data telling the user that a cyclist can go
down it.
So anything that a cyclists is allowed to travel on (presumably, excluding
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Honestly, tagging on the basis of measured human activity doesn't
work. Plenty of genuine bike paths get more foot traffic than wheeled
traffic.
What makes them genuine bike paths, then?
Bike signs. Painted bike symbols.
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 7:32 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
What makes them genuine bike paths, then?
Bike signs. Painted bike symbols. Documentation to that effect.
Fair enough. But in the absence of such
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
Anthony (and others), what did you think of my proposal from two days
ago?:
highway=path (deprecate footway and cycleway!!)
*:legal=yes/no (e.g. bicycle:legal=* - for those who want to map the law)
*:signed=yes/no (e.g.
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
So here's my (proposed) scheme:
highway=path (deprecate footway and cycleway!!)
Any support for
path=foot
path=cycle
path=horse
path being distinct from highway (more work needed on this)
highway for motorised vehicles who may (?!) share
path not for
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Richard Mann wrote:
There's an awful lot of cycleways already, so your definition has to
recognise that.
I assume that something which is marked as a cycleway really is one
The argument in Europe is whether cycleways are by default
shared (UK / Dutch norm), or by default
Hi!
Am 12.12.2009 14:53, schrieb Pieren:
I don't understand why this discussion is (again) happening on this
list.
Because there is an unsolved problem and about every two months somebody
stumbles over it.
Every two monthes, the australians and americans are complaining
here that the
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
currently i'm looking at the Australian legal definitions because i'm
sure the
traffic engineers have answered these questions for us already.
Maybe if by us you mean Australians.
not at all
Researching a topic means
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2009, Anthony wrote:
You don't know how to define
place_where_people_walk/cycle/drive_vehicles?
It's a place, where people walk/cycle/drive_vehicles. Legal definitions
aren't going to help you with that. Well,
On 11/12/2009, at 5:44 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
The current wiki definition of highway=cycleway is mainly or
exclusively for bicycles. This I cannot be sure of from the aerial
imagery, nor can I of anything to do with the law. What to do...
Ah, the curse of NearMap being too good.
The current
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 9:02 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
The current solution I've seen near Brisbane is do whatever you prefer,
which is why several paths flip back and forwards between footway and
cycleway depending on who traced each section :-\ Given that I don't know
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 6:02 AM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
On 11/12/2009, at 5:44 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
The current wiki definition of highway=cycleway is mainly or
exclusively for bicycles. This I cannot be sure of from the aerial
imagery, nor can I of anything to do with
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
(Oh, I see what it is, using Google Street View, so I won't tell lest we
taint the entire database or something.)
I also see a sign at one of the entrances to the path. With a picture of
something. Am I allowed to tell you what
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:05 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
It had source=nearmap because it was traced from nearmap. I've never seen
source:highway=* to indicate how they decided what kind of path it is.
Me either, but this idea is documented:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I spotted two or three bicyclists near two or three pedestrians. Looks like
shared-use, which means highway=path.
I vehemently object to this rule that shareduse means highway=path.
I think the wiki just hasn't caught up with
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 1:05 PM, James Livingston doc...@mac.com wrote:
It had source=nearmap because it was traced from nearmap. I've never seen
source:highway=* to indicate how they decided what kind of path it is.
It's rare, but probably a good idea. Sometimes if I move a few nodes
on an
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
I spotted two or three bicyclists near two or three pedestrians. Looks
like
shared-use, which means highway=path.
I vehemently object to this rule
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Roy Wallace wrote:
the cycleway tag means that you can cycle along without
having to get off and port your bicycle over a fence
But Liz, this definition isn't on the wiki. Have you documented your
definition *somewhere*? How am I supposed to know that you mean this
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
So, what's your definition of cycleway?
Do you mean the tag, or the reality? If the reality, then I could
describe several classes of bike path and multiuse path and pedestrian
path.
34 matches
Mail list logo
