Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

2017-04-25 Thread Ture Pålsson
> 25 apr. 2017 kl. 21:52 skrev Martin Koppenhoefer : > > > > sent from a phone > > On 25. Apr 2017, at 19:07, Tobias Zwick > wrote: > >> I would say so, as long as there are not in reality two cycleways (see >> above). Wouldn't you? > > > it depends on the meani

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

2017-04-25 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 25. Apr 2017, at 19:07, Tobias Zwick wrote: > > I would say so, as long as there are not in reality two cycleways (see > above). Wouldn't you? it depends on the meaning/reading. I believe cycleway=track is bad anyway, it's ok for preliminary mapping but fails when it

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

2017-04-25 Thread Tobias Zwick
> https://www.google.com/maps/@47.6757218,-117.3849352,3a,75y,70.4h,83.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqdzvokjXjkutvCYJLOWh_A!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!5m1!1e4 > > That's a bicycle lane on the road, plus a distinct bicycle path running > parallel to it. It's mapped in OSM as a "cycleway=lane" on the road and a

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging and rendering of television masts

2017-04-25 Thread Andy Townsend
On 25/04/2017 13:51, Greg Troxel wrote: However, if one renders and one doesn't, in the default style, that's a bug, and presumably someone can make a pull request to fix it - it seems obviously uncontroversial. You'd have thought so, but a project maintainer closed exactly that issue at http

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging and rendering of television masts

2017-04-25 Thread Greg Troxel
Oleksiy Muzalyev writes: > Both "man_made=tower;tower:type=communications" and "man_made=mast" > are being used interchangeably. One of them is rendered with a good > icon and another not rendered at all on the OSM map. > I was not suggesting to re-tag this particular communication mast per > se