[Tagging] Bicycle rental docking station

For amenity=bicycle_rental there is some ambiguity regarding docking stations vs drop off points bicycle_rental=docking_station Vs bicycle_rental=dropoff_point The wiki and SC quest imply that the difference between A docking station and a drop off point for bike schemes is whether the stand

Re: [Tagging] bicycle lane on mini-rounabout

How do I tag a bicycle lane (way.Type element on a mini-roundabout (node-type element)?. Example: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/-yxlx8FNVBHgMC7LH9eFNA I would say cycleway=lane. Remarkable enough no node with

[Tagging] bicycle lane on mini-rounabout

How do I tag a bicycle lane (way.Type element on a mini-roundabout (node-type element)?. Example: https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/-yxlx8FNVBHgMC7LH9eFNA Virus-free. www.avast.com

Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

sent from a phone > On 23. Aug 2019, at 09:07, Morten Lange wrote: > > Could you/someone explain how you can search for objects that form such > spatial relationships? I’m not sure how to do it with publicly available services, but if I’m not misguided, overpass api allows you to do it.

Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

23 Aug 2019, 09:07 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > Could you/someone explain how you can search for objects that form such > spatial relationships? > Overpass API is good for start. Wiki has page with examples for Overpass API/Overpass turbo, including "X within N meters from Y, limited to Z

Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

Martin wrote:> IMHO no. We do not need tags of an is_in fashion for this, > we can model this universally by making use of implicit > spatial relationships (i.e. put the bike kitchen inside the community > centre or pub, or the other way round, according to our > interpretation of the

Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

Hello, I am skeptical as that makes finding them less straightforward, if you are looking for   [ a place where I can get my bicycle repaired or receive some help].Many potential users will not know about bicycle kitchens or that other community centres offer bicycle repairs.But I think they

Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

sent from a phone > On 15. Aug 2019, at 17:48, Jmapb wrote: > > Also note that for self-service bike repair we have > "amenity=bicycle_repair_station" -- presumably not the best tag for this > community centre bike repair service (it sounds like volunteers do the > repair work, not the user)

Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

Yup,  In fact there are no less than three of them in Oslo and one in Reykjavik (that I know of).The preferred solution for those is I think to map two separate nodes, one for the café and the other for the bicycle (repair) shop. Or better a POI inside a way/house. The last option is what was

Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

On 8/15/2019 10:11 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Anyway, just a property like "service:bicycle:repair=yes" and a name would not work, IMHO No indeed, I wouldn't recommend it as a stand-alone feature tag. But as extra tag to a shop or amenity, it think it would help. Also note that for

Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

sent from a phone > On 15. Aug 2019, at 15:49, Jmapb via Tagging > wrote: > > For anything that's not a bicycle shop but still does bicycle repairs > (I've seen cafes, car repair shops, outdoor shops, and even a church > with this service), consider just adding the >

Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

On 8/14/2019 6:45 PM, dcapillae wrote: Obviusly, «amenity=community_centre» Sounds correct. For anything that's not a bicycle shop but still does bicycle repairs (I've seen cafes, car repair shops, outdoor shops, and even a church with this service), consider just adding the

Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

Sorry, Obviusly, «amenity=community_centre» (my mistake). -- Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

Hi, Morten. Where I live (Málaga, Spain), there is (or was) a bicycle workshop with similar characteristics. Its creator defined it as a socio-cultural bicycle workshop. You could take your bike there for repair. I had tools and everything you might need. In addition, more experienced people

Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

7 Aug 2019, 21:36 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > Hi, > > I wonder how I should tag bicycle shops that are not shops in the traditional > "buy our products" sense. > > A community-centre that is also offers bicycle repairs / is a bicycle repair > shop. > Map like usual repair point and add

Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

sent from a phone > On 7. Aug 2019, at 21:36, Morten Lange via Tagging > wrote: > > I wonder how I should tag bicycle shops that are not shops in the traditional > "buy our products" sense. around here this is also a common phenomenon, I am not sure whether they are all tagged the same,

Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

Le 07.08.19 à 21:36, Morten Lange via Tagging a écrit : > I wonder how I should tag bicycle shops that are not shops in the > traditional "buy our products" sense. one area for the community center one node inside this area for the shop > community_centre=bicycle_maintenance this only make

Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

Cafés^, not cages. Android swiping strikes again. On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 10:19 PM Leif Rasmussen <354...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've seen cages that are also bike shops, so whatever tagging solution we > up with should work with any type of shop. > Leif Rasmussen > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 9:38 PM

Re: [Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

I've seen cages that are also bike shops, so whatever tagging solution we up with should work with any type of shop. Leif Rasmussen On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 9:38 PM Morten Lange via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I wonder how I should tag bicycle shops that are not shops in

[Tagging] Bicycle kitchens, community centres that offer bicycle repairs etc

Hi, I wonder how I should tag bicycle shops that are not shops in the traditional "buy our products" sense. A community-centre that is also offers bicycle repairs / is a bicycle repair shop.Or a bicycle "shop"  that primarily focuses on refurbishing disused bikes.Or a community-centre or

Re: [Tagging] tagging bicycle charging stations

On 2018-06-28 13:40, Paul Allen wrote: On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 4:40 AM, André Pirard mailto:a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 2018-06-27 16:28, Paul Allen wrote: [Suggestion to use amenity=charging_station + charging:bicycle=yes + charging:car=yes I remember having been told off

Re: [Tagging] tagging bicycle charging stations

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 4:40 AM, André Pirard wrote: > On 2018-06-27 16:28, Paul Allen wrote: > > [Suggestion to use amenity=charging_station + charging:bicycle=yes + charging:car=yes > I remember having been told off by someone who doesn't like namespaces: > "we are not doing like that" ;-) >

Re: [Tagging] tagging bicycle charging stations

On 28 June 2018 at 04:38, Max wrote: > > but this will change soon as standardization happens. You mean like this: https://xkcd.com/927/? :-) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging bicycle charging stations

You don't need to include all the "no" values, I'd say. Just tag what you see (not what you don't see). amenity=charging_station charging:bicycle=yes On Wed, Jun 27, 2018, 20:39 Max wrote: > On 27.06.2018 17:39, marc marc wrote: > > Le 27. 06. 18 à 16:28, Paul Allen a écrit : > >> On Wed, Jun

Re: [Tagging] tagging bicycle charging stations

On 27.06.2018 17:39, marc marc wrote: Le 27. 06. 18 à 16:28, Paul Allen a écrit : On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: I encountered public charging station for electric bicycles. did you upload the photo somewhere ?

Re: [Tagging] tagging bicycle charging stations

Le 27. 06. 18 à 16:28, Paul Allen a écrit : > On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> I encountered public charging station for electric bicycles. did you upload the photo somewhere ? I never see a public charging station for bike. what kind of the plugs are available ?

Re: [Tagging] tagging bicycle charging stations

On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I encountered public charging station for electric bicycles. > > How this should be tagged? > > Currently https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity% > 3Dcharging_station > recommends > > amenity=charging_station > bicycle=yes >

[Tagging] tagging bicycle charging stations

I encountered public charging station for electric bicycles. How this should be tagged? Currently https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dcharging_station recommends

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > Yes, Paul, lane tagging would solve many if not all of my tagging > problems. But, as far as I know, there are no renderers that would > interpret the data correctly. Renderer issue.

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

Modal lane tagging. bicycle:lanes=no|no|no|designated (left three lanes closed to bicycles, right lane a designed bike lane). May also be joined with something like, motor_vehicle:lanes=yes|yes|yes|no to exclude motorists from the far right lane... On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Volker

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

Yes, Paul, lane tagging would solve many if not all of my tagging problems. But, as far as I know, there are no renderers that would interpret the data correctly. In particular the OpenCycleMap renderer does not do this (yet?). That's why I try to avoid lane tagging (I know ... we are not tagging

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

Den 26. nov. 2015 kl. 21.53 skrev Joachim : > > The question is: Are there somewhere on this world non-compulsory > cycle lanes (cycleway=lane)? Yes, cycle lanes are not compulsory in Norway, neither are cycleways. ___ Tagging

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 14:31:59 + Philip Barnes wrote: > One question, if cyclelane use is compulory, are you allowed to not > use it if you are overtaking slower cyclists? It depends on the type of cycle lane in Germany. If it's a "strict" (not a legal name) cycle lane

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

On Sat, 2015-11-28 at 14:46 +0100, Tor wrote: > Den 26. nov. 2015 kl. 21.53 skrev Joachim : > > > > The question is: Are there somewhere on this world non-compulsory > > cycle lanes (cycleway=lane)? > > Yes, cycle lanes are not compulsory in Norway, neither are cycleways. >

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 14:31:59 + Philip Barnes wrote: > One question, if cyclelane use is compulory, are you allowed to not > use it if you are overtaking slower cyclists? AFAIK there is no exception for that in Poland. ___

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

> > One question, if cyclelane use is compulory, are you allowed to not use > it if you are overtaking slower cyclists? > > In Italy there are two answers: 1) legally no. I asked that question explicitly to an expert friend. Worse: if the cycle lane is blocked by an illeglly parked vehicle, you

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

2015-11-27 12:57 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt : > It seems to be a nice smooth cycleway (so smooth hat it has a speed limit > of 20km/h), but a good lawyer could earn a lot of money when it comes to > the question whether this is a cycleway with mandatory use in case of a > serous

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

2015-11-27 13:22 GMT+01:00 Mateusz Konieczny : > Please, no. Spamming oneway=no, cycleway=no, bridge=no, toll=no, > opening_hours=24/7 for nearly all highway=* ways is not helpful (all > are real examples) is not helpful. > yes, these should not go on every highway, but

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

I'm not sure either. The crossings are a bit unclear, there are only > pedestrian crossings, and the cycleway explicitly starts after the > crossing, Formally the crossing is bicycle dismount, but, as the cycleway ends and re-starts at the pedestrian crossing, by the wonders of the Italian

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:41:42 +0100 "Hubert" wrote: > The tag "cycleway=lane/track" already implies that the use of the > cycle way is compulsory. If there is no cycle way, you can add > cycleway=no, so that routers know that it's OK for bicyclist to use > that road and fellow

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

Yes, agreed. A case of lost in translation. For me a cycle lane doesn’t count as a cycle way. From: Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com] Sent: Freitag, 27. November 2015 13:20 To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

On 27. November 2015 10:51 Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com] wrote: > translated: cyclists have to use cycleways, where they exist. It does not > address the question how > far away the cycleway can be from a parallel road. That simplifies the question a lot. The tag

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

@Martin "loro riservate" (reserved for them): does this mean that combined > foot/cycleways are not compulsory, because they are not reserved for > bicycles? > These combined foot-cycle-ways in Italy are legally really pedestrian sidewalks on which cyclists are tolerated (implicit speed limit fo

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

Hallo Volker. I'd advise you to map those cycle ways as separate osm ways, even if this is still globally disputed. AFAIK, it is quite common in the Netherlands and Poland. And I'm also a fan. :) The fragmentation of the main road way will multiply if you use many different tags like oneway,

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

Martin, one of the purposes of my detailed mapping (attempts) is that I want to produce a map that can be used to improve the cycling infrastructure in Padova and also to collect data that improve routing for cyclists. When you try to do that you realise al kinds of inconsistencies. You mention

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

@Hubert I fully agree in case of a separate cycleway or foot-cycleway. I would already consider a kerb as a physical separation. But the so called cycle lanes (only divided from the motorized traffic by a white line) should not be drawn as a separate way parallel to the street. And it's on these

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

2015-11-27 10:50 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt : > I velocipedi devono transitare sulle piste loro riservate quando esistono "loro riservate" (reserved for them): does this mean that combined foot/cycleways are not compulsory, because they are not reserved for bicycles? E.g.

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:58:41 +0100 "Hubert" wrote: > Hallo Volker. > > I'd advise you to map those cycle ways as separate osm ways, even if > this is still globally disputed. AFAIK, it is quite common in the > Netherlands and Poland. And I'm also a fan. :) To clarify

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:30:23 +0100 Volker Schmidt wrote: > (the trash container and the leaves go into a > separate crowdmap). Trash container is probably mappable also in OSM. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

can you define what a compulsory cycle lane means? Is it that when cycling > on the road you have to use this lane? Or that you aren't allowed to use > any other nearby way if you are on a bike? How far is the range of this > prescription? > I should have added at the beginning of this thread

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

2015-11-27 10:50 GMT+01:00 Volker Schmidt : > I should have added at the beginning of this thread that I am looking, in > the first place, at the situation in Italy. > Here is what there is in terms of definition of compulsory cycleways in > Italy: > (articolo 182 comma 9

[Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

Two situtions where I have doubts on correct tagging A) In the case of a road with two cycle lanes with mandatory use (they do have the official cycle path signs - case L1a in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle) how do I tag correctly the mandatory use on the highway: 1) by

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

Hallo Volker, there is not accepted method to denote that a way is mandatory to use by bicyclists, however there are some proposals ([1],[2]) for that. It’s only possible to tell a cyclist to stay off a carriage way by tagging “bicycle=use_sidepath” on the central osm-way. There a few

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

I meant M3a not M3b to your question B) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:35:07 +0100 Volker Schmidt wrote: > B) In the case of a oneway road with one mandatory opposite-direction > cycle lane (they do have the official cycle path signs in the > direction opposite to the car flow - case L1a in >

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

Thanks for the two fast replies. n answer to my first question you both suggest to map a bicycle lane (which is separated from the main carriageway only by a white painted line) as a separate way. To me this seems not correct. We apply always the rule to map as separate ways only ways that are

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

As Andy suggested to me in a separate mail here a link to the first situation: case L1a in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Bicycle Mapillary example: http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/3wfpqOM-VrIo8qY-pCnxJw/photo For the second situation I can only offer the example M3a (by error the number was

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 18:40:48 +0100 Volker Schmidt wrote: > Thanks for the two fast replies. > n answer to my first question you both suggest to map a bicycle lane > (which is separated from the main carriageway only by a white painted > line) as a separate way. To me this

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

On 26. November 2015 18:41 Volker Schmidt [mailto:vosc...@gmail.com] wrote: > n answer to my first question you both suggest to map a bicycle lane (which > is separated from the > main carriageway only by a white painted line) as a separate way. To me this > seems not correct. If you read

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

Sorry Mateusz, My Mail Client didn't download your reply until I sent my post. Hubert ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

Use_sidepath was invented to solve the *routing* problem of compulsory *separate* cycle paths. Usage of use_sidepath together with highway=*+cycleway=* was hotly discussed after the proposal got accepted.[1] The question is: Are there somewhere on this world non-compulsory cycle lanes

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

just after sending this I realised it would be better to have non-compulsory highway=x cycleway=lane bicycle:lanes=yes|designated vehicle:lanes=yes|no and compulsory highway=x cycleway=lane bicycle:lanes=no|designated vehicle:lanes=yes|no On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 7:52 AM, Marc Gemis

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Joachim wrote: > The question is: Are there somewhere on this world non-compulsory > cycle lanes (cycleway=lane)? If yes, we have two possibilities: what about highway=x cycleway=lane bicycle:lanes=yes|yes vehicle:lanes=yes|no for

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

On 27. November 2015 07:55, Marc Gemis [mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com]. wrote: >and > >compulsory > >highway=x >cycleway=lane >bicycle:lanes=no|designated >vehicle:lanes=yes|no "bicycle:lanes=no|designated" doesn't seem correct because there are certain situations (at least in Germany) where you

Re: [Tagging] bicycle=use_sidepath applicable to bicycle lanes?

sent from a phone > Am 26.11.2015 um 21:53 schrieb Joachim : > > The question is: Are there somewhere on this world non-compulsory > cycle lanes (cycleway=lane)? can you define what a compulsory cycle lane means? Is it that when cycling on the road you have to use this

Re: [Tagging] bicycle barriers open issue: bicycle trailors

Am 28.08.2013 10:35, schrieb Volker Schmidt: Thanks for your useful comments, which essentially reflect the reasons for which I brought up the issue. Objective criteria are difficult to define. In particular max_width and max_length are useless because they are linked variables. Locally

Re: [Tagging] bicycle barriers open issue: bicycle trailors

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:58 AM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com wrote: One can tag the maximum width that can fit through, given zero length, and can tag the maximum length that can fit through, given zero width, but a trailer that has BOTH the maximum length and maximum width will not

Re: [Tagging] bicycle barriers open issue: bicycle trailors

bicycle:trailer=no would say it's not ALLOWED to cross this barrier with a trailer - and that is simple but wrong. You have a point there. What I want ideally is the equivalent of width (which I can measure) and not of max_width (which is written on an official road sign). But on a cycle

Re: [Tagging] bicycle barriers open issue: bicycle trailors

On 27/08/2013 19:36, Volker Schmidt wrote: I am particularly interested in tagging cycling routes, including the national long-distance cycling network Bicitalia in Italy. In Italy cycle paths are frequently de facto blocked by chicane-type bicycle barriers. So my tagging is typically a node

Re: [Tagging] bicycle barriers open issue: bicycle trailors

In many cases (as shown on the web page) cycle barriers are not designed to make the rider dismount, just slow down. The bicycle=dismount should be used when there is an actual requirement to get off, such as a sign saying so or some steps. Here in Padova, Italy, these cycle barriers are more

Re: [Tagging] bicycle barriers open issue: bicycle trailors

2013/8/28 Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de bicycle:trailer=no would say it's not ALLOWED to cross this barrier with a trailer - and that is simple but wrong. -1, as this is a new key it would probably not be defined to be an access-restriction but to be the physical possibility.

Re: [Tagging] bicycle barriers open issue: bicycle trailors

2013/8/28 John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com Yes, even if you micromapped the whole geometry, it's hard to tell how large an object you can get through the restrictions --- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_sofa_problem for an open mathematical problem related to chicanes! You could

Re: [Tagging] bicycle barriers open issue: bicycle trailors

Am 28.08.2013 13:21, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: 2013/8/28 Peter Wendorff wendo...@uni-paderborn.de bicycle:trailer=no would say it's not ALLOWED to cross this barrier with a trailer - and that is simple but wrong. -1, as this is a new key it would probably not be defined to be an

Re: [Tagging] bicycle barriers open issue: bicycle trailors

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 It's depends on the geometry of the barrier. # ... pole - - ... bar 1. ## quiet easy, width between two poles is enough 2. #-# #-# you'll need the space to the left/right and the distance between the two parts 3. ##-# |

Re: [Tagging] bicycle barriers open issue: bicycle trailors

And who is doing in your opinion: 1) the precision measurement of the barrier? 2) the precision measurement of the bicycle? 3) how does the routing work? You have to give it the paramaters of the bike trailer? This is simply not practical. We need a more pragmatic approach Volker On 28

Re: [Tagging] bicycle barriers open issue: bicycle trailors

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Volker Am 28.08.2013 18:43, schrieb Volker Schmidt: 1) the precision measurement of the barrier? the mapper 2) the precision measurement of the bicycle? the cyclist Unfortunately this is the only real solution. All other solutions with a

Re: [Tagging] bicycle barriers open issue: bicycle trailors

We've established: 1. There are all manner of vehicles that may have trouble getting through the chicane (bikes, trikes, tandems, trailers, wheelchairs, canoe trailers, trail-a-bikes, land-rover baby strollers, etc.) 2. No simple geometry measurement determines what will fit (

Re: [Tagging] bicycle barriers open issue: bicycle trailors

I am particularly interested in tagging cycling routes, including the national long-distance cycling network Bicitalia in Italy. In Italy cycle paths are frequently de facto blocked by chicane-type bicycle barriers. So my tagging is typically a node with barrier=cycle_barrier foot=yes

Re: [Tagging] bicycle barriers open issue: bicycle trailors

maxlength and maxwidth for what will fit through the chicane. On Aug 27, 2013 1:38 PM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote: I am particularly interested in tagging cycling routes, including the national long-distance cycling network Bicitalia in Italy. In Italy cycle paths are frequently

Re: [Tagging] bicycle barriers open issue: bicycle trailors

Il giorno 27/ago/2013, alle ore 20:36, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com ha scritto: Should I simply systematically use bicycle:trailer=no and hope that others follow? Or formulate a proposal and ask for votes? Any other ideas? I'd do both, but more for documentation, you don't have to

Re: [Tagging] bicycle barriers open issue: bicycle trailors

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 It's hard to set a value for them because they are depending on each other. ;) Henning Am 27.08.2013 21:52, schrieb Paul Johnson: maxlength and maxwidth for what will fit through the chicane. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20

Re: [Tagging] bicycle barriers open issue: bicycle trailors

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote: Taginfo shows 8 uses of bicycle:trailer - this is certainly not a widespread use. Should I simply systematically use bicycle:trailer=no and hope that others follow? Or formulate a proposal and ask for votes? Any other

Re: [Tagging] bicycle barriers open issue: bicycle trailors

It's hard to set a value for them because they are depending on each other. ;) I mean tag the facility geometry, not the size of trailer that is judged to fit. bicycle:trailer=no might lead to bicycle:tandem=no, and a lot of really fuzzy tags of limited predictive value. You can also tag some

Re: [Tagging] bicycle barriers open issue: bicycle trailors

One can tag the maximum width that can fit through, given zero length, and can tag the maximum length that can fit through, given zero width, but a trailer that has BOTH the maximum length and maximum width will not fit through. You can't readily predict in advance whether a real-life trailer

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

If the cycleways coming to the crossing are tagged as foot=no, then why does the crossing have to be tagged with access tags? Janko If the cycleway is drawn as a way there is no problem. The problem is only when you tag the crossing node and you don't draw the cycleway. Alberto

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

I've tagged some cycle crossing drawn as a single node with highway=crossing, foot=no and bicycle=yes. I would not use access=no because it can be misunderstood and routing software could prevent access to the main street. From your description it seems that the node might be forbidden to

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

If the cycleways coming to the crossing are tagged as foot=no, then why does the crossing have to be tagged with access tags? Janko 2013/4/10 Alberto albertoferra...@fastwebnet.it I've tagged some cycle crossing drawn as a single node with highway=crossing, foot=no and bicycle=yes. I would

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

Hi! 2013/4/9 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com How to tag a bicycle-only crossing. We have here occasionally road crossings that are separate for pedestrians and for bicycles. They can be even 20meters apart. Is it highway=crossing bicycle=yes foot=no Sounds reasonable. Although if it is

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

On 4/9/13 8:35 AM, Martin Vonwald wrote: Hi! 2013/4/9 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com How to tag a bicycle-only crossing. We have here occasionally road crossings that are separate for pedestrians and for bicycles. They can be even 20meters apart. Is it highway=crossing bicycle=yes foot=no

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

Hi! 2013/4/9 Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.net but what is it crossing? if you put access=no on a node that is shared by a cycleway and a public highway, you'll deny access to cars. A node with highway=crossing (or level_crossing for railways) only refers to the crossing of the highway,

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Genuine question - if you have a highway=cycleway crossing a highway=unclassified at a shared crossing node, how do you know which one is the highway itself? And even more genuine : why do you have to tag the

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

Good question. But in this context it would by obvious in my opinion - the cycleway. 2013/4/9 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote: A node with highway=crossing (or level_crossing for railways) only refers to the crossing of the highway, i.e. its access tags

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

2013/4/9 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote: A node with highway=crossing (or level_crossing for railways) only refers to the crossing of the highway, i.e. its access tags do not refer to the highway itself. Genuine question - if you have a

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

I've tagged some cycle crossing drawn as a single node with highway=crossing, foot=no and bicycle=yes. I would not use access=no because it can be misunderstood and routing software could prevent access to the main street. The best solution is to tag intersection node with highway=crossing and

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-only crossings

Am 09/apr/2013 um 20:39 schrieb Alberto albertoferra...@fastwebnet.it: I've tagged some cycle crossing drawn as a single node with highway=crossing, foot=no and bicycle=yes. I would not use access=no because it can be misunderstood and routing software could prevent access to the main

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-no on motorways

On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: ** Where do we stop, if we override the implied tags do we then have to add pedestrian=no horse=no invalid_carriage=no learner_driver=no hgv_learner=yes tracked_vehicle=no agricultural_vehicle=no and so on.

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-no on motorways

On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 3:33 AM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: ** On Sat, 2013-02-09 at 01:41 +, Dave F. wrote: Hi Around my area in the UK a user is presently adding bicycle=no to all motorways. There was a discussion a while back whether it that tag was implied for

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-no on motorways

On Sat, 2013-02-09 at 01:41 +, Dave F. wrote: Hi Around my area in the UK a user is presently adding bicycle=no to all motorways. There was a discussion a while back whether it that tag was implied for motorways. If I remember, it was claimed there were some places (not UK) that

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-no on motorways

On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I have had a quick look around Melbourne's motorway entrances on streetview and all I have looked at have a sign like this http://goo.gl/maps/0hC6c. Please can you point out one that does allow cyclists? Western

Re: [Tagging] bicycle-no on motorways

On Sat, 2013-02-09 at 23:25 +1100, Steve Bennett wrote: On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: I have had a quick look around Melbourne's motorway entrances on streetview and all I have looked at have a sign like this http://goo.gl/maps/0hC6c. Please

  1   2   >