Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

Hey Roland The reason I asked about whether there is a tool that finds (possibly wrong) duplicate mapped cycleways because a very similar algorithm could be used to determine whether any one street is actually *missing* cycleway tagging or whether the cycleway is in fact already tagged but as a

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

This is different view than what is described in the Danish page. I seen several cases where people treat curbs/kerbs differently from other barriers. I have also read in previous discussion that people oppose separate OSM ways for reasons such complexity and navigation. The complexity mainly

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/oEm Thank you for the link. Unfortunately it does not (yet)catch also the segregated and not-segregated foot-cycle-paths that are tagged using the JOSM presets (highway=path, foot=designated, bicycle=designated, segregated=yes|no)

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Marc Gemis wrote: > Just curious, do you apply the same arguments to map separate > sidewalks and sidewalks separate from cycle ways ? Or are there > reasons to treat sidewalk differently ? > Yes, if it's separated by a curb or median from

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

Just curious, do you apply the same arguments to map separate sidewalks and sidewalks separate from cycle ways ? Or are there reasons to treat sidewalk differently ? m On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2017-04-27 9:19 GMT+02:00 joost

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

For years the danish community has generally been following this recommendation: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Da:Cykelstivejledning on when to use cycleway=track and when to use separate cycleways. I'd like to express the opinion that cycleway=track is NOT bad and actually in many

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

+1 > On 27 Apr 2017, at 7:39 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > I fully agree on this. Please do not remove separate cycleways, unless they > are wrongly mapped cycle lanes (an error which I encounter from time to time) ___ talk mailing

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

> > http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/oEm Nice tool, thanks! Unfortunately it does not (yet)catch also the segregated and not-segregated foot-cycle-paths that are tagged using the JOSM presets (highway=path, foot=designated, bicycle=designated, segregated=yes|no) I am not an Overpass-Turbo expert and

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

> > > Yes, there are arguments for both ways of mapping, but as long as we don't > prefer one over the other, mappers will edit back and forth without much > sense. > I just think it's too complicated an issue to just decide here and now. So a good and neutral guideline is probably the first

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

2017-04-27 10:21 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe : > There are very good arguments for both sides of this discussion. I forgot another two pro distinct geometry: 4. consistency. There is a general rule that separate carriageways should be mapped separately. Why would we do

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

There are very good arguments for both sides of this discussion. Is there a wiki article where both views are really confronted with all the arguments? (I've seen a long article about why you should use separate ways to make wheelchair routing possible, but can't find it now. But I don't remember

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

2017-04-27 9:19 GMT+02:00 joost schouppe : > So not all of the cases are an error, but many of them. I would like to come to a common agreement and document that highway=cycleway on distinct geometry is preferable to having just a cycleway=track attribute on a road.

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

> On Apr 27, 2017 9:24 AM, "joost schouppe" wrote: > > > > So not all of the cases are an error, but many of them. So is there any tool available to answer OP? Or do you have to write your own solution? > > Since no-one said so yet, I suppose there isn't. There is, the

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

So not all of the cases are an error, but many of them. So is there any tool available to answer OP? Or do you have to write your own solution? Since no-one said so yet, I suppose there isn't. Here's a quick visual check: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/oEm I think I found a nice example of a messed

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Tobias Zwick wrote: > Hi > > I wonder, does anyone know a QA tool out there that finds duplicate > cycleways? > > With duplicate, I mean cycleways that are both > - tagged as cycleway=* on a highway=* way and > - mapped as a separate way

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

In some countries you have to place bicycle=use_sidepath on the main road when you map a separate cycleway. This is done to indicate that you are supposed to ride on the cycleway, but may use the main road to access e.g. houses on the opposite side. In such a case it make no sense to also keep

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

On onsdag den 26. april 2017 07.22.27 CEST Ture Pålsson wrote: > > 25 apr. 2017 kl. 21:52 skrev Martin Koppenhoefer : > > > > > > > > sent from a phone > > > > On 25. Apr 2017, at 19:07, Tobias Zwick > wrote: > >> I

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

> 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 >>

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

> 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] Finding duplicate cycleways

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 19:49:56 +0200 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > > > On 24. Apr 2017, at 19:27, Tobias Zwick wrote: > > > > With duplicate, I mean cycleways that are both > > - tagged as cycleway=* on a highway=* way and > > -

Re: [OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

sent from a phone > On 24. Apr 2017, at 19:27, Tobias Zwick wrote: > > With duplicate, I mean cycleways that are both > - tagged as cycleway=* on a highway=* way and > - mapped as a separate way parallel to the street with highway=cycleway do you suppose this is an

[OSM-talk] Finding duplicate cycleways

Hi I wonder, does anyone know a QA tool out there that finds duplicate cycleways? With duplicate, I mean cycleways that are both - tagged as cycleway=* on a highway=* way and - mapped as a separate way parallel to the street with highway=cycleway I understand that there is no simple tag on the