Hi All,
I am interested in a small area of trails. There are about 10 trails in
a local reserve, all the trails are sign posted and named etc, but
there is no actual marked route you just pick which trails you want to
use to get to where you want to go.
However the tagging used in OSM to me seems
,
surface=dirt/gravel, and add the route relation
Steve
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 4:33 PM, David Clark
[4]dbcl...@fastmail.com.au
wrote:
Hi All,
I am interested in a small area of trails. There are about 10 trails in
a
local reserve, all the trails are sign posted and named etc
improved I've noticed. In line
with the normal map updates more or less*
Sent from my iPhone
On 31/01/2013, at 10:38 PM, Steve Bennett [6]stevag...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:33 PM, David Clark
[7]dbcl...@fastmail.com.au wrote:
Ok I've changed route=mtb to mtb=yes for the trail
Is there a way I can export a route as osm or gpx or kml from
Openstreetmap.
ie Mawson trail:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=153983
I just want the lines that are part of this relation and nothing else.
Thanks,
David
___
Talk-au mailing list
Help with relations:
There are two relations assigned to the Mawson Trail (both of which are
currently incomplete, ie they don't show the whole 900km trail yet).
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=2001420
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?relation=153983
I want to do the following so I can try
All sorted, thanks Ian. :-)
-
In JOSM open both relns. Select all objects in one. Add selection to
other. Delete the first.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Sorry I don't really understand this, how will this affect me and what
I see?
Thanks
David
- Original message -
From: Grant Slater [1]openstreet...@firefishy.com
To: talk-au [2]talk-au@openstreetmap.org,
[3]nzopen...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [talk-au] New tile rendering server
] New tile rendering server (Experimental)
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 15:36:15 +0100
On 23 July 2013 15:08, David Clark [4]dbcl...@fastmail.com.au wrote:
Sorry I don't really understand this, how will this affect me and what
I
see?
Hopefully you shouldn't see any difference. :-)
It is a large behind
I'm trying to work out how to filter by tags using Scripting in JOSM
but am struggling to work out how to do it. Anybody got any tips?
Thanks,
David
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
I've been mapping stuff on OSM for a while but I've recently started
doing my own rendering for gps. From this I've gained a new insight
into the highway=path tag so am posting here.
Firstly my focus is on tracks and trails so that is where I'm coming
from.
The basics of what I have noticed is
the best,
David
- Original message -
From: David Clark [1]dbcl...@fastmail.com.au
To: [2]talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [talk-au] Highway=path
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 09:45:55 +0930
I've been mapping stuff on OSM for a while but I've recently started
doing my own rendering for gps. From
or not applied.
On 4/06/2014 10:48 AM, David Clark wrote:
This is what I'd suggest is added to the Australian Tagging Guidelines
wiki if there is no objection. (This is a simplification of what is at
[1]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface ).
Add to both sections:
* Urban Footpaths and Cycleways
The Australian Tagging Guidelines says to tag them highway=path,
foot=yes. I think surface=unpaved or dirt or ground should be included
too.
Yup. I've long argued that objectively verifiable tags, like surface,
are very useful.
Yeah I recon that would be good, and have the surface hyperlinked
I have 2 thought on this and have posted before about the
surface=blahblah tag not being used for highway=path when by my
interpretation it really should be. ie if you use highway=path,
then you should be including the tag surface=blahblah if you
have any idea what the surface is (because there is
I lean towards mapping what's physically there, so if the trail exists I
think it's ok to map it if you want to.
If the trail is blocked by a fence/barrier and signage saying keep out
etc, then I think access=no would be appropriate as it's facts based on
what's physically there.
I also
my thoughts based on lot of ground truthing. Ie getting lost.
Cheers
Brett Russell
On 30 Jul 2015, at 12:09 pm, David Clark dbcl...@fastmail.com.au wrote:
I lean towards mapping what's physically there, so if the trail
exists I think it's ok to map it if you want to.
If the trail
I come across similar situations quite often and you could write an
essay on access to each individual trail but it's not worth it and still
doesn't improve the accuracy or clarity.
My opinion is that the situation is sufficiently vague enough that I
wouldn't tag any specific access or
Hi,
I use www.ridewithgps.com for route planning and have found I can't plan
a route across a ford even though the tagging looks correct. I'm not
sure at the moment if this is a problem with OSM routing in general or
with the www.ridewithgps.com routing. When planning a route it won't let
you
:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/directions?engine=osrm_carroute=-33.4973%2C150.7659%3B-33.5122%2C150.7665
On 20 July 2015 at 14:52, David Clark dbcl...@fastmail.com.au wrote:
Hi,
I use www.ridewithgps.com for route planning and have found I can't
plan a route across a ford even though
19 matches
Mail list logo
