On 03/09/2020 10:58, Gareth L wrote:
I think the permissive tag is due to it being yet another perceived public
space which is actually private, so there’s no public right of way.
Would access=permissive or access:bicycle=permissive be sensible? Or is that
also mangling tagging conventions. I
If iD really is prompting changing highway=cycleway->highway=footway
without preserving cycle access, we can expect to see cycle routing
becoming badly broken in a lot of places. Some of these edits were made
3 weeks ago and nothing like that appears to have been reported elsewhere.
There also
3 wrz 2020, 11:58 od o...@live.co.uk:
> Would access=permissive or access:bicycle=permissive be sensible? Or is that
> also mangling tagging conventions. I genuinely don’t know!
>
It would be bicycle tag, not access:bicycle___
Talk-GB mailing list
I think highway should be reverted to cycleway. There's a
misunderstanding that highway=cycleway implies priority to bicycle
riders, when it actually relates just to the number of transport modes
which can use it. Bridleway equates to three modes: walkers, bikes & horses.
DaveF
On 03/09/2020
I think access=permissive could have unfortunate consequences for motor
vehicle routing, unless routers ignore highway=footway|cycleway anyway.
Some of these paths should probably have motor_vehicle=private added
(together with some gates and removable/rising bollards), as maintenance
and event
Rather than reverting, I restored access and left the top-level
highway=* tag alone.
I only noticed these changes when plotting a route in Komoot and
noticing that I needed to create/drag a lot of extra waypoints in order
to get the expected behaviour. Hopefully Komoot will behave responsibly
and
I think the permissive tag is due to it being yet another perceived public
space which is actually private, so there’s no public right of way.
Would access=permissive or access:bicycle=permissive be sensible? Or is that
also mangling tagging conventions. I genuinely don’t know!
Gareth
> On 3
On 03/09/2020 10:41, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 03.09.20 11:29, Robert Skedgell wrote:
>> I believe the most appropriate base tagging, following the duck tagging
>> principle for highway=*, for most of the paths in QEOP would be:
>> highway=cycleway + segregated=no + bicycle=permissive +
Hi there,
Unless there's a "history" to this I recommend that you assume good
intent. Seems Skyguy made an embarrassing mistake there.
Please also don't assume "tagging for the renderer" or "vandalism",
those two OSM curse words ;) the mapper explicitly stated their
intention in the changeset
Hi,
On 03.09.20 11:29, Robert Skedgell wrote:
> I believe the most appropriate base tagging, following the duck tagging
> principle for highway=*, for most of the paths in QEOP would be:
> highway=cycleway + segregated=no + bicycle=permissive + foot=permissive
I think that highway=cycleway
These changes should be reverted in my view.
But I would note that the default map on osm.org does a poor job of
communicating the difference between shared paths (like those in QEOP and
elsewhere) and dedicated cycle lanes. Both look like blue dashed lines. They
look indistinguishable. So
I suspect that the real clue is in the changeset tags:
resolved:outdated_tags:incomplete_tags=10
So the iD validator has presumably claimed that the tagging of
those paths was "out of date" in some way and this was likely a
misguided attempt to fix that.
Of course that was likely based on
A user has recently changed highway=cycleway objects in Queen Elizabeth
Olympic Park, London (QEOP) from highway=cycleway to highway=footway on
the ground that "Olympic Park paths are Pedestrian Priority".
In several places, the edited object no longer has a bicycle=* access
tag and segregated=no
13 matches
Mail list logo
