Thanks Cleary, that’s an interesting approach. Two questions: (1) would you be
open to the same approach being used if the local relation contained just a
single closed way, rather than a pair of polygons as in your example? (2) in
your example, the relation for the local area contains just the
I had looked at this a few years ago. I edited one area , making it part of two
relations :
South West Woodland Nature Reserve (relation 5825677)
South West Woodland Nature Reserve - Hiawatha Precinct (relation 7477098)
The first relation includes all twenty or more areas that comprise the
Thanks that's great. I changed them to use a caption, and tweaked the text,
but if you feel that's worse feel free to revert or let me know and I will.
On Mon, 16 May 2022 at 16:58, wrote:
> Hi
>
> I have edited
>
>
A highway=track without any other access tags is ambiguous, so you should
always tag either access=* or foot=*. An agricultural track on private
property should have access=private to prevent trespassing. A fire trail
which only authorised emergency services and land management vehicles can
use
I presume that a single closed way for an area would work - I think I might
have done it somewhere but I don't recall where. The Hiawatha precinct was
memorable because of its unusual name.
On Tue, 17 May 2022, at 2:44 PM, Little Maps wrote:
> Thanks Cleary, that’s an interesting approach.
Hi
I have edited
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Footpath_Cycling
(1) to record the different international English uses of footpath,
pavement and sidewalk
(2) to give photographic examples as a base for discussion.
Not intending to redefine anything,
Hi Tony, Ian
The Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks section has not changed in some
time. I added the {{Controversial}} template following the extensive
discussions around the time I started cleaning up the wiki pages
Tony,
I'm wondering about the usefulness of adding foot=yes to highway=path and
highway=track.
I have never done this because I thought it would be assumed that
pedestrians (and cyclists) can use paths and tracks ?
In WA, where people have (in my opinion) wrongly classified a path as a
On 16/5/22 20:31, Little Maps wrote:
Hi folks, some advice please…
In the CAPAD import of conservation reserves, multi-site reserves
(those that include many patches, often a long way apart ) all seem to
be given the generic name of the entire reserve network - e.g. “ South
West Woodland
On 16 May 2022, at 8:57 pm, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Not quite all with the 'same name'?
>
> While they are all members of the same relation some carry a name. e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/225222372
>>
Thanks for that example. As I understand it, this puts a name
Hi Ian
I did not edit Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks
only Footpath Cycling
Bush Walking and Cycling Tracks
contains ... controversial information. See the talk page. This page
has been archived as part of the Australian wiki cleanup
I wonder where that controversial material has gone?
Yes
Hi Tony,
On 16/5/22 07:00, fors...@ozonline.com.au wrote:
Hi Kim
Can I please clarify "using highway=cycleway should only be used where
there are signs allowing"?
That is how I've always used it in urban areas.
Does this apply to just sidewalks (US sidewalk, UK pavement, AU
footpath) or
Hi folks, some advice please…
In the CAPAD import of conservation reserves, multi-site reserves (those that
include many patches, often a long way apart ) all seem to be given the generic
name of the entire reserve network - e.g. “ South West Woodland Nature Reserve”
or “River Murray
13 matches
Mail list logo
