On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Matej Lieskovský
wrote:
> I have no idea where you map, but here, >90% of roads never even heard about
> cycleways. For us here, it makes sense to consider cycleway=no to be
> implicit, as the information that someone surveyed it is not worth the extra
> tags. Your
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Matej Lieskovský wrote:
> Someone in the Netherlands might want to assume cycleway=both as the
> default. (The cycleway tag is just an example here.)
>
Maybe for older roads; newer roads would be cycleway=no with parallel
cycleways on either side, for which oneway
Ok. Look.
I wrote a long rant about how cycleway=no is a horrible idea and then I
deleted it.
I have no idea where you map, but here, >90% of roads never even heard
about cycleways. For us here, it makes sense to consider cycleway=no to be
implicit, as the information that someone surveyed it is no
Well, by not adding tags with assumed default values, we simply cannot
distinguish them from the situation where they have not been verified.
For instance, some mappers don't care about cycleways but still map
streets. How can somebody that cares about cycleways know that they
should verify the pr
I agree that this deserves a separate topic, but I want to respond to some
points you made.
I don't like the highway_defaults idea. Default values should be assumed
whenever they are not explicitly given. I don't think that a tag that
states "most of those are probably going to be correct" is usef
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Matej Lieskovský
wrote:
> 1) If we try to add every possible tag to every element, the DB will be
> immense and the OWG will try to kill us. Imagine every road having access
> tags. Should roads have tunnel=no?
I will digress a bit, as I believe this should be a se
On 4 January 2018 11:57:05 GMT+00:00, "Matej Lieskovský"
wrote:
>While considering the absence of a value to imply that it is unknown is
>an
>elegant solution theoretically, I think it has two major problems:
>1) If we try to add every possible tag to every element, the DB will be
>immense and
While considering the absence of a value to imply that it is unknown is an
elegant solution theoretically, I think it has two major problems:
1) If we try to add every possible tag to every element, the DB will be
immense and the OWG will try to kill us. Imagine every road having access
tags. Shoul
Tag absence has never been defined clearly in OSM. Some think of it as
meaning "the tag has the default value," others think "the value of the tag
is still unknown," which seems to be the most common understanding (that's
why noname=* exists).
I always add tags in their default value to express th
Wish for the New Year: a world where all streets have cycleways and hence
cycleway=no is a useful tag to indicate the few exceptions.
More realistically, cycleway=no is useful to indicate that someone has
verified there is no cycleway.
For example to indicate that the large sidewalk that is clearl
This sounds similar to those that suggested adding oneway=no to all streets
that are not explicitly tagged as oneway=yes. All roads without
cycleways could conceivably be tagged this way.
Unless there is some cause for such a tag, for example, noting that a
cycleway once existed here but is no long
Hello,
Le 26. 12. 17 à 00:22, Dave F a écrit :
> There's been quite a few recent additions of 'cycleway:both=no' being
> added by users of StreetComplete.
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8609990
>
> There's no mention of this tag on the wiki & to me appears a bit
> ambiguous. Most (all?)
Hi
There's been quite a few recent additions of 'cycleway:both=no' being
added by users of StreetComplete.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8609990
There's no mention of this tag on the wiki & to me appears a bit
ambiguous. Most (all?) are the sole cycle tag on the entity. Both=no
suggests
13 matches
Mail list logo
