The rulesets for speeds are already complicated, and getting more
complicated as streets are slowly converted from 50kph to 30kph (we're about
to have a mass-conversion here in Oxford).
Relations are complicated to the casual user, and probably best used for
sequences of Ways where someone might
I'd agree that service isn't quite right, if that's the front of the
buildings. But similarly residential isn't right either (I guess we all
think of that as something with pavements/sidewalks).
So is there any objection to highway=pedestrian+bicycle=yes+motorcycle=yes?
Richard
On Thu, May 28,
I'd have said a pedestrian street was one which (often through conversion)
is now primarily for access on foot, and pretty much unsegregated (ie no
kerbs, and not much paving differentiation). Access varies (can be bicycles,
motorcycles or even some cars - eg Lucca in Italy). It doesn't only apply
I'd stick to the ABC classifications, except where a road is clearly
over-classified (ie it's been bypassed, or blocked to through traffic). This
can happen because of reluctance to declassify a road (which means less
money to spend on maintaining it).
British AB roads tend to be through roads
I'm learning that people's reluctance to tag things subjectively is because
they have learnt the hard way that this just leads to arguments.
Maybe the mountain should be given the name of the park, since that's what
the locals refer to it as, with the actual name of the mountain as an
alternative
The Russian example looks like highway=service to me (ie basically a
car-park). The main thing about a living-street is that it's been paved to
be much more pedestrian-friendly, and you can't see very far (so everything
goes slowly).
Richard
___
talk
Germany has them too (Fahrradstrasse). Probably highway=residential with
cycleway=something as yet undefined.
Richard
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
I'm curious if bicycle boulevards would qualify as living streets, given
that a living street would
I think designation is about the legal status of a way, particularly where
that might not be obvious from, or in conflict with the physical
characteristics of the way.
On physical characteristics, you can get a fair way with highway=residential
+ maxspeed=(say)30. There wouldn't be too many
If the Dutch have a specific cyclestreet sign which is widely understood
to mean something to road users, then I'd have said that's good enough to
warrant a cycleway=cyclestreet, even if the sign doesn't generate any
special traffic rules, just an expectation of priority/courtesy. But it
wouldn't
the
proposal. Voting comes later. And of course you are entitled to propose
something else instead.
Richard
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:43 AM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
Richard Mann wrote:
This is a request for comments on the proposal for a new
Key:designation. Hopefully it's had it's
The wiki link was wrong, try
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/overview_ways#Fahrradstra.C3.9Fe
Presumably these cycleroads have disappeared from Mapnik (and any other
rendering that doesn't keep up with things that aren't in Map Features)?
Richard
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:33 PM,
rendering for maxspeed=20mph).
Richard
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 4:10 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/6/11 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com:
The wiki link was wrong, try
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Bicycle/overview_ways#Fahrradstra.C3.9Fe
I think the English word for it is Central Business District. Or less
formally City Centre or Town Centre.
Richard
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 7:28 PM, David Paleino d.pale...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to retrigger discussion about a Proposed feature, namely
landuse=something (you'll
An arcade usually cuts through a block, rather than running alongside a
road. I'd have said colonnade was about right, though they're not exactly
common in the UK (the two level shops at Chester spring to mind, but they
are probably peculiar to themselves). We do have what can best be described
as
.
City Centre or Town Centre would generally refer to the commercial
centre (or CBD).
Richard
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/6/15 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com:
I think the English word for it is Central Business
We're about data - the map IS the data. I defy anyone to illustrate more
data in any other way.
Maybe the map should try to show more of the data (render the lines narrow
so more shows up, maybe with names appearing at only higher zooms) rather
than the default being an all-purpose street map.
Free-thinking from ignorance of how practical it would be for the
developer...
Maybe one way of foregrounding OSM's data-richness would be to have access
to some of this detail - and ideally an edit option (just the tags for that
area/way/node) - if you click on something. This takes you from I
On the cycle map, I often find myself zooming in on the station to find out
the name of a town, though perhaps it would be better if the city name
rendered...
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.159lon=4.515zoom=11layers=00B0FTF
Richard
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Anton Yuzhaninov
I know it's a devil of a balancing act, and am hugely grateful that
someone's made as good a job of it as you have already. Maybe it's one of
those instances when someone ought to discreetly shift the town name node to
somewhere a bit more renderer-friendly.
Richard
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 12:04
This has been updated in light of initial comments. I would however
appreciate feedback on whether the values subsequently proposed for Germany
(by Nop) have support before moving to a vote.
Richard
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation
It looks too complicated to me.
Given that certain tags apply to ways but not nodes, would it not be
possible to imply some meaning by attaching bridge=yes+layer=1 to a node on
a way, to mean the segment between this node and the next?
Then the way wouldn't need to be chopped up in the first
:
- Original Message - From: Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com
To: Talk Openstreetmap talk@openstreetmap.org
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Collected Way support
It looks too complicated to me.
Given that certain tags apply to ways but not nodes
+1
As it happened, I opened on a local shopping street (Cowley Road, Oxford).
The POIs that people have been adding that aren't on dragdrop are
ATMs/Banks and cycle parking...
Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
Apols for pre-empting announcement (I would rather have been en route to
Amsterdam, but alas...)
One suggestion would be the ability to memorise the last relation you've
added something to (maybe Memory as a third button on the add-to screen),
and a single keystroke method of adding another way
don't want to copy (eg a restriction). It needs documenting.
The ability to copy paste a single tag (including a relation tag) may
prove to be more useful.
Richard
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
Shift-click on the relation button
I saw some strange rendering effects when a side road was straight onto a
bridge. The bridge was layer=1, so the side road was rendered on top of the
main road. That's why all the ways approaching a junction should be on the
same layer. You can either achieve this by inserting a short way between
Sometimes it's physical, sometimes administrative. Generally it's
administrative where that is clearly defined (ie the higher road classes in
developed countries), and more physical when it isn't.
So saying either is correct wouldn't be entirely true.
Richard
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 7:16 PM,
I'd agree that it should be importance for
trunk/primary/secondary/tertiary. The stuff about not using trunk for
single-track roads just doesn't match what people are actually doing
(judging by some of the roads in the Western Highlands). The physical tends
to align to the importance, but what we
Interesting - I've measured the widths of most of the main roads in Oxford,
mostly at quiet times of day (easy enough with a wheely device - I wouldn't
recommend tape). I do kerb-kerb.
My inclination would be to put widths on nodes, since they are measured at
points, but that might not be too
a statement at the top of a wiki page
that is only partly true.
Richard
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:17 AM, David Lynch djly...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 19:02, Martin Koppenhoeferdieterdre...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/8/5 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com:
I'd agree
My English was perhaps unclear. The discomfort is with using the same tag
for two quite different road types (industrial estate roads and country
lanes). Either would be fine on their own.
The potential problem for renderers is that there's a lot less space to
render things in urban areas, so
/5 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com:
Motorway is mainly physical. The point is that it most definitely isn't
defined by importance.
well, in nearly all cases the motorways will be the most important
roads. Of course there are also other characteristics and a highly
Proposal: +1. Thanks
The question whether urban unclassifieds are at the same level of urban
residentials can be left to the router/renderer - best not to mention it.
The tagger just needs to be able to describe what is there simply and
clearly. A new tag for rural unclassifieds would clarify
I'm coming to sympathise with the rendering gods, this really is going round
in circles isn't it!
The advantage of a new highway tag is a nice clear match between tag and
reality, leading to better performance by taggers, renderers and routers.
The disadvantage is confusion in the transitionary
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:51 AM, John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com wrote:
The problem with this is it requires urban areas to be in existence for the
routing to work, so this is a bad idea as well.
Routers can look for an abutters tag just as easily as using an urban area
polygon.
Richard
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Shaun McDonald sh...@shaunmcdonald.me.ukwrote:
The abutters tag is dwindling in use as landuse polygons should be used
instead as the new way of doing things.
Agree, but you wouldn't test against a landuse polygon anyway, you'd test
against an urban area
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.comwrote:
actually track implies even within Germany different things (legally,
due to the federal organisation), as in Baden-Württemberg it is
generally forbidden to use them even without special signs, where in
the rest
As indicated, I've had a go at a rewrite of the unclassified page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
Comments in the usual place (or have your own go at hacking it)
Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
Keepright appears to think that bridges without a layer tag imply layer=1.
Whereas I'd assumed in my tagging that layer=0 unless stated. Is this to
match what renderers do? I would rather they didn't, because making the
waterways layer=-1 seems to work most of the time, and I'd prefer to avoid
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Kev o...@kevswindells.eu wrote:
Presumably in this case
highway=residential
access=emergency; foot; bicycle
barrier=entrance
access=emergency
bicycle=yes
foot=yes
on a node might be better
Richard
___
talk mailing
Um, since the footway in question might reasonably be construed not to be
adjacent to a roadway, I'm not 100% convinced it'd actually be illegal to
cycle on it. But I'd leave it to local judgement whether it was regarded as
acceptable to cycle there.
Richard
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:14 PM, David
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 9:20 PM, OJ W ojwli...@googlemail.com wrote:
sidewalks in villages - what to do?
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.172898lon=-0.524788zoom=18
are they footpaths or are they road attributes?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Footway
If it's
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Roy Wallace waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
In other words, at any node which is a junction of way
segments with different layers (whether the segments are part of the
same way or different ways), the physical implication is that the
slope of the way changes in
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:15 AM, ed...@billiau.net wrote:
a previous poster (I've lost the thread as I'm using my webmail)
said that these could be assumed in residential areas.
While residents here would like concrete paths provided in residential
areas they are not standard by any means.
The German-language page is quite a bit clearer - it says use path in
forests and fields (I think).
Plus for cycleways that are segregated by line (hmm - this looks like a
bodge; at least it's precise).
The English-language page suffered from enthusiastic editing by people who
thought path might
Path certainly seems to have fulfilled a need for less-good paths in
fields forests. I would go so far as to say it should now be recommended
for that purpose (but noting that there's still quite a lot of use of other
tags for data users to be aware of, and this usage may persist).
However, I
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Dave Stubbs osm.l...@randomjunk.co.ukwrote:
The path proposal could have been successful long ago if
applications were pushing it instead of refusing to use it (see
CycleMap).
It's on the todo list.
It screws up the stylesheets in horrible ways due to
I think the underlying problem with path is that it creates overlapping
definitions. Among data users there is a strong preference for tag
combinations to be hierarchical, and I think that preference is reasonable.
While having to deal with doctor and doctors is only a mild pain, trying
to deal
Neither is acceptable. How long do you want style-sheets to get?
Plus - what languages are all these tags going to be documented in? How many
languages do I have to read to make sense of them all?
Somehow we need to get to a common-enough definition that we can all live
with. Which is not to
access=official is a proposal (and one that appears to be in abeyance)
It's basically trying to create another access= value to try to sort out
some of the mess with access=designated, but I fear it just adds further to
the confusion.
Richard
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Roy Wallace
We in Oxford still hope to get to rendering cycle lanes and tracks on one
side of the road only. Ideally in such a way that we can use the likes
of cycleway:left=track rather than marking separate cycle tracks. This is
because it will give the renderer much more control over the output.
The
You could also assume byway and track (tracktype=grade1/grade2, at least)
are available for cyclists (neither would be likely to have bicycle access
specified).
Richard
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de wrote:
Rahkonen Jukka wrote:
Cartinus wrote:
You'd
The established intention is quite clear, and not unreasonable - so there's
no need for a working group.
Just document that grave_yard is for ones around churches, and cemetery for
separate ones, *and* redirect people to the other tag if they've got the
other situation. Having tried to clarify a
Eagerness should be channelled, not suppressed.
Richard
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 12:34 AM, Jason Cunningham jamicu...@googlemail.com
wrote:
And I would be tempted to tag it
highway=footway
graffiti=yes
I am beginning to think cycleway gets added by eager cyclists far more
often than
Now I haven't actually tried this, but for those (as they say) who are
watching in black and white (or feel more comfortable in the Microsoft
comfort zone), you could probably do much the same thing in a spreadsheet
(eg in Excel, put the CSV in one sheet, write some functions to parse the
data
If we were just gathering data for routers, we would map every lane as a
separate way, with relations for moving between each pair of adjacent lanes.
If we were just gathering data for rendering a single-scale street map, we'd
add tags to a single way, and probably not bother with lane info.
I
The other hurdle is learning how to render. If this one was a bit easier,
more people would do their own. That will come - but it's slow going
(especially for non-geeks).
Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
You could record it as a type of turn-restriction relation, but I have a
prejudice against those, having copied them down a bus route for quite a way
until I realised I'd picked up a stray. That (of course) may be a problem
with the editor I'm using, but keeping it simple is always a good maxim.
Picking up Ray's point that observing the back of the giveway sign is a
rather indirect way of saying follow the road round to the right, the
simplest/clearest is probably a relation on the through route linking the
ways before/after the junction, saying this is the priority route through
the
The regional development agencies have quite big budgets, actually. But I'd
agree that England needs to have it's own level.
Richard
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com wrote:
Igor Brejc igor.brejc at gmail.com writes:
For days now I've been trying to figure out how I
Three ways, middle one is highway=residential+footway=no, explicit links
between the ways where there is a connection (highway=steps). I don't think
footway=yes|no is properly documented, but it is referred to in a few
places, and I haven't come across an alternative tagging for it.
Richard
On
Maybe call them the Berlin servers for forwards compatibility?
Richard
2009/10/16 Dirk-Lüder Kreie osm-l...@deelkar.net
Frederik Ramm schrieb:
While we do casually refer to these new servers as the German dev
server and the German tile server, they are open to all members of the
Perhaps these mega-imports should be background data, equivalent to Yahoo
and NPE, for people to trace off if they've got a reasonable belief in their
current correctness, but not to be used raw? Then while people are tracing
their neighbourhood, they might put in some of the details that aren't
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Nick Whitelegg
nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
This would simply be highway=cycleway, I think the general assumption is
that pedestrians are permitted unless foot=no is added.
The crux of the matter is that this is not what the wiki says, and not what
at
I didn't resolve it because either the UK view or the German view (or some
other view) has to be the default. What we can't agree is which should be
the default.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Richard Mann
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Liz wrote:
we can have a cycleway
und einen Fahrradweg
Yep. And cycleway ~= Fahrradweg.
Steve
There are umpteen ways of resolving it. The problem is that we don't have a
process for agreeing which. I wouldn't go
I think the honest answer is that oneways tend to be treated as interesting
information that applies to cars. Ahem.
In the UK, we tend to make the oneway stretch very short with a cycle track
in the opposite direction, so they show up as two-way on most renderings,
but routers can't find a way
On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 9:39 AM, John Smith deltafoxtrot...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/12/3 Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com:
I find the current practice of duplicating minor roads when there is a
median strip pretty unsatisfactory. Even disregarding the effort, the
end result never renders
+1 (on tagging vs drawing models)
I think it's a good rule of thumb that if it can't be rendered easily, then
you need to look again at your tagging model - your data isn't structured in
a way that is usable
Never tag for a renderer. Always tag for the renderers.
Richard
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at
Mike asked for examples of basic physical status.
1) Path - poorly-defined path (either because of low usage, or because
there's no advantage in taking any particular line, or because someone's
ploughed it)
2) Footway - well-defined, but not suitable for horses, due to accesses
(stiles / kissing
Before we all get too depressed, I think I agree with both of you (Dave /
Mike) that any changes to tagging should be backwardly-compatible, as far as
practical (or at least minimise the wrongness if the old tagging is
unchanged).
But we also need a scheme that is simple, effective and shows
...@mail.atownsend.org.ukwrote:
Richard Mann wrote:
Only the British
use bridleway. The Dutch have markedly few footways (which probably
indicates cycleway is being used quite loosely).
My recollection of both urban and rural bits of the Netherlands is that
there actually are fewer footways than cycleways - I've
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 6:25 PM, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.comwrote:
On 26/03/2009 17:14, Richard Mann wrote:
highway=cycleway+designation=public_bridleway does the job with the
minimum of fuss.
and requires us either to change the renderers or mislead horse riders.
David
I
We all contribute in our own way. For instance I found 1467 instances of
snowmobile=no in Germany in tagwatch. It isn't clear whether each of those
had the proper No Snowmobiles sign (the wiki seems to be a bit vague on the
criteria) :)
Richard (West Oxford)
If it's good enough for a horse and a mountain-bike, but not really a
normal bicycle, I'd tag it as highway=bridleway in the UK, highway=path
(+horse=yes if explicitly signposted) elsewhere. If it's been improved such
to be good enough for a normal bicycle, I'd tag it as
I think internationally it is quite rare for cyclists to have priority over
pedestrians on cycleways (maybe only Germany). I remember wandering onto
the cyclist half of a pavement/sidewalk in Germany, and eventually noticing
that someone was riding behind me, repeatedly ringing their bell to get
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Frank Sautter openstreet...@sautter.comwrote:
Richard Mann wrote:
There are an awful lot of track/grade1 in Germany, and I would like to
know what the typical surface is
here in germany we (mostly) we tag farmers or forestry roads
(Wirtschaftswege
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Frank Sautter openstreet...@sautter.comwrote:
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Frank Sautter
openstreet...@sautter.commailto:
openstreet...@sautter.com
wrote:
Richard Mann wrote: There are an awful lot of track/grade1 in
Germany, and I would like to know
Why not tag it as a cycleway? Then it will display as a cycleway. How is it
different from anything else that might be tagged as a cycleway?
Richard
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Marc Schütz schue...@gmx.net wrote:
Right now, ways highway=footway or highway=path,foot=designated where
It comes down to what you think is meant by highway=cycleway. If you think
that it means a cycle superhighway, then obviously you don't want to apply
that to a shared-with-pedestrians route. But cycle superhighways are pretty
rare, and highway=cycleway is used much more widely than that. I've come
I feel like there's something slightly missing. Perhaps needs a mention of
ever-more-accurate data, with the implication that it remains permanently
and very-intentionally open to improvement by new people who see details
that have been missed.
I don't see OSM as providing data, more providing a
I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map layer,
especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used (for raw paths as
you describe them). The dark grey dashed lines in Mapnik seem a good
starting point.
If path was rendered then the problem kinda goes away - use
, Apr 30, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'd support that highway=path needs to be rendered in the cycle map
layer,
especially now it's becoming clearer how it's being used
Every time it gets discussed, it becomes *less* clear how it's being
used
Keepright fusses if highways with different layers meet at junctions
(because it messes up rendering if the highways are drawn differently). So
where you've got a bridge very close to a junction you have to put in a
short way for the bridge and a very short way linking the bridge to the
junction.
bridge=yes is so that people can render nice parapets
I'd agree that layer tags should not be required for water/highway
crossings. Keepright should keepquiet!
Richard
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Jukka Rahkonen
jukka.rahko...@mmmtike.fiwrote:
Pieren pieren3 at gmail.com writes:
I guess we have to decide whether culverts or fords are the more common (and
explicitly tag the less-common). I'd plump for culverts being significantly
more common myself, but that might not be true on a whole-world basis.
Richard
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Peter Childs pchi...@bcs.org
4) And maybe I do some rendering myself...
Richard
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Hi,
Steve Bennett wrote:
My strategy:
1) I want to tag Y instead of X.
2) I tag Y, fallback:X
3) I get on with my life. Renderers will catch up whenever.
My
Drawing separate ways for cycleways/footways alongside roads is nice and
simple. Doing it with tags on a single way is about 5 times more complex to
tag, but tolerable, and potentially a lot easier to render well. Doing it
with areas is maybe 100 times more complex to tag, and cannot replace the
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
If OCM isn't going to be open, then it shouldn't be in the main map.
Keep it on, for the same reasons that it got put on in the first place -
that it shows what you can do with elevation data OpenContourMap?), and
with neat
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:44 PM, Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk wrote:
Perhaps we do need to fork the project and create openmap.org so we can
get away from a fundamental belief that 'the road rules'? But all I am
'shouting for' is that there are hooks to maintain a hierarchy of detail as
surmise it's non-trivial or they'd have done it.
Richard
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Richard Mann
richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com wrote:
But I'd also like there to be an open, straight Mapnik (ie
2010/1/4 Lauri Kytömaa lkyto...@cc.hut.fi
The national officials here are allegedly constructing a
database for a online routing service for cycling and they have concluded
that the information can not be described with sufficient detail for
very accurate routing as tags on the roads.
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Adrian Moisey adr...@changeover.za.netwrote:
I've managed to get pieces of it to render on the cycle map:
http://osm.org/go/kaIGiwl?layers=00B0FTF'
Interestingly this appears as a GREEN cycle route, presumably because it's
tagged route=bicycle+network=mtb. I
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 5:36 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
...routers would lead pedestrians in areas where they are not allowed to
walk (cycleways).
Nonsense. There'll be a footway alongside that they can use (99.999%
of the time).
If you want to micro-map a footway as
Chill guys. I still just about remember being a newbie, and I didn't
find Potlatch crap.
Not knowing what the + button did was crap. The endless
contradictory wiki is crap. It's a bit too easy to do something too
dramatic in Potlatch by inadvertantly using the wrong keyboard
shortcut (merging
Error-checking sounds like a great way of putting scary pop-ups on the
screen to frighten newbies. So you'd have to be very very careful how
clear they were. If in doubt leave them out. Leave these bugs to be
detected by keepright etc.
But there should be a way of editing names of existing
Yes its a relic. Use highway=track+designation=byway instead
Richard
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:58 AM, André Riedel riedel.an...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the difference between a byway an a track?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway
An unmade path/track which usually allows
I think routers would be better served if we identify good through
routes (ie the equivalent of highway=primary for motorists), and
record them as relations, perhaps
network=lcn+status=unofficial+signposted=no. But Andy's a strict
objectivist, which rather gets in the way of documenting this sort
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Jens Müller b...@tessarakt.de wrote:
Am 03.05.2010 19:29, schrieb Richard Mann:
I think routers would be better served if we identify good through
routes (ie the equivalent of highway=primary for motorists), and
record them as relations,
I thought a router
There's a school of thought that would like to see cycle maps produced
in this way (the people in Cheltenham call it the Cheltenham
standard), using a 5-point scale (roughly: dead-quiet, ok if you can
manage a straight line, need to be able to deal with a few cars, need
to be able to look over
1 - 100 of 397 matches
Mail list logo
