Re: [talk-au] OSM Attribution Q

[forster]

And I also reported another attribution error:

From:   Mapbox Support 
To: Forster 
Reply-To:   Mapbox Support 
Subject:Mapbox Support - we received your message

Thanks for contacting Mapbox Support! We've received your message. If  
you have an emergency or see a disruption in service, please see  
http://status.mapbox.com/ for critical updates. If you haven't  
already, check out our great documentation and guides for more  
resources (like our https://docs.mapbox.com/api/;>API  
Documentation and https://docs.mapbox.com/help/;>Help  
pages) -- the answer to your question might just be there!


If you are a Premium, Business, or Essential support plan customer,  
please disregard the following and expect a reply from our team within  
the agreed upon SLAs for your plan.


We are experiencing a high volume of tickets coming in. If you  
haven't purchased one of our href="https://www.mapbox.com/support#support-plans;>support plans,  
we may not be able to respond to your question. For faster help,  
get advice from the larger community of developers building with  
Mapbox by https://stackoverflow.com/questions/ask;>submitting  
your question on Stack Overflow using the href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/mapbox;>Mapbox tag.


With our href="https://account.mapbox.com/subscriptions/;>Essential,  
Business or Premium support plans, we guarantee engagement with our  
team within a certain time window - check out our href="https://www.mapbox.com/support#support-plans;>Mapbox Support  
Plans page to learn more.


When contacting the Mapbox Support team directly, href="https://support.mapbox.com/;>tickets opened via our contact  
form will be prioritized over tickets submitted via email.


To ensure the best support experience, we highly recommend using one  
of the above approaches.


Happy mapping!

The Mapbox team


On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 at 07:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:



Hi Sergey

Thanks for that!

I reported it online & received an acknowledgement,



& it was reported via this form:
https://support.mapbox.com/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=36308212

Hope that helps?

Thanks

Graeme







___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] OSM Attribution Q

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 at 07:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> Hi Sergey
>
> Thanks for that!
>
> I reported it online & received an acknowledgement,
>

& it was reported via this form:
https://support.mapbox.com/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=36308212

Hope that helps?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] OSM Attribution Q

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 22:04, Sergey Beliamei 
wrote:

> Hello, Graeme!
> I work at MapBox. We did not receive a message from you, please, tell me
> what address you sent it to?
>
> Best regards,
> Member of Mapbox team,
> Sergey
>

Hi Sergey

Thanks for that!

I reported it online & received an acknowledgement, which I'll send through
in a moment.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

[talk-au] OSM Attribution Q

[Sergey Beliamei via Talk-au]

Hello, Graeme!
I work at MapBox. We did not receive a message from you, please, tell me
what address you sent it to?



Best regards,
Member of Mapbox team,
Sergey
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycle tags on motorways

[Ian Sergeant]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 18:33, stevea  wrote:

> In the case of cycleway=lane, that IS paint, and I (and many others) map
> these all the time.  I see nothing wrong with “mapping paint” like this.
>
>
As long as it's not a separate way.  Paint can form a lane, but there
should be no indication that there is actual separation.  And doubly so on
motorways.  Cycling on one in most parts of the world would see you
arrested and starring on Highway Patrol with the stupid guy music in the
background.  In Australia it passes for cycling infrastructure.

This allows people to plan routes avoiding 100km/h+ roads, for example.

Ian.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycle tags on motorways

[stevea]

On Aug 18, 2022, at 12:42 AM, Michael Collinson  wrote:
> Purely as a question: Is there a case for actually mapping the whole cycleway 
> separately as a cycleway? As a cyclist, I like to see what I have in store. 
> Argument for: Well, that is what it is, a dual use cycleway and hard 
> shoulder. And I guess main argument against: Ah, but it is not physically 
> separated and, slightly repurposing Andrew's comment, "you are mapping paint”.

In the case of cycleway=lane, that IS paint, and I (and many others) map these 
all the time.  I see nothing wrong with “mapping paint” like this.



___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycle tags on motorways

[Michael Collinson]

Purely as a question: Is there a case for actually mapping the whole 
cycleway separately as a cycleway? As a cyclist, I like to see what I 
have in store. Argument for: Well, that is what it is, a dual use 
cycleway and hard shoulder. And I guess main argument against: Ah, but 
it is not physically separated and, slightly repurposing Andrew's 
comment, "you are mapping paint".


On 2022-08-18 08:48, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:




On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 13:17, Andrew Harvey  
wrote:



We should explicitly tag every motorway with bicycle=yes/no
because some motorways allow bicycles and others forbid them.


& then you get situations like this:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-28.535651543577=153.53896264714=17=1164980277280563=photo=0.3457481526763355=0.5159430950498471=2.6582278481012658 



then 100m further:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-28.536232873317=153.53874804183=17=387825812412523=photo=0.4645538612648733=0.5690565818776447=1.5949367088607593 



which is tagged as: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/666546115

Yes, it works, I guess, but to my mind it looks ridiculous, & also 
errors in Osmose etc as an unconnected cycleway!


 Thanks

Graeme


___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycle tags on motorways

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 16:58, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

>
> I would probably not model that way, the onramp should merge much sooner
> with the motorway and that should be good enough, unless you start mapping
> paint on the road.
>

So you reckon take out the bike crossing altogether, & the "two" motorways
each with cycleway=yes merging would then work as a bike crossing?

 Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycle tags on motorways

[Andrew Harvey]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 16:49, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 13:17, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> We should explicitly tag every motorway with bicycle=yes/no because some
>> motorways allow bicycles and others forbid them.
>>
>
> & then you get situations like this:
>
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-28.535651543577=153.53896264714=17=1164980277280563=photo=0.3457481526763355=0.5159430950498471=2.6582278481012658
>
> then 100m further:
>
>
> https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-28.536232873317=153.53874804183=17=387825812412523=photo=0.4645538612648733=0.5690565818776447=1.5949367088607593
>
> which is tagged as: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/666546115
>
> Yes, it works, I guess, but to my mind it looks ridiculous, & also errors
> in Osmose etc as an unconnected cycleway!
>

I would probably not model that way, the onramp should merge much sooner
with the motorway and that should be good enough, unless you start mapping
paint on the road.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Cycle tags on motorways

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Thu, 18 Aug 2022 at 13:17, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

>
> We should explicitly tag every motorway with bicycle=yes/no because some
> motorways allow bicycles and others forbid them.
>

& then you get situations like this:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-28.535651543577=153.53896264714=17=1164980277280563=photo=0.3457481526763355=0.5159430950498471=2.6582278481012658

then 100m further:

https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=-28.536232873317=153.53874804183=17=387825812412523=photo=0.4645538612648733=0.5690565818776447=1.5949367088607593

which is tagged as: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/666546115

Yes, it works, I guess, but to my mind it looks ridiculous, & also errors
in Osmose etc as an unconnected cycleway!

 Thanks

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au