On 9 September 2016 at 12:35, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> I'm not enormously comfortable with highway=no - it's a bit like the justly
> discouraged amenity=pub, disused=yes. The designation= tag should be enough
> on its own for something that isn't actually a highway on the
On 9 September 2016 at 12:35, Richard Fairhurst
wrote:
> Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> > it would be interesting to know what routers make of highway=no.
>
> From
> https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/blob/master/profiles/foot.lua
> :
>
> ...
>
> I'm not
Dudley was quite right, if there's a section of path in the PRoW dataset
our code would fill in the gap, on the assumption it was incomplete. If
there's a clear logical way of indicating a legal right of way that can't
be used in reality then I'll gladly update the code to reflect it. It's a
I note that we have a polygon for Forge Mill Lake Local Nature Reserve:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/384208591
but not one for RSPB Sandwell Valley, which forms part of the former reserve.
Does anyone have a freely-licensed source for the RSPB boundary? I
know it includes the boom
Hallo,
This month we interviewed SomeoneElse [1] in our Mapper of the Month series [2]
Enjoy !
regards
m
[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/escada/diary/39470
[2]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Belgian_Mapper_of_the_Month
Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> it would be interesting to know what routers make of highway=no.
From
https://github.com/Project-OSRM/osrm-backend/blob/master/profiles/foot.lua:
elseif access and access_tag_whitelist[access] then
-- unknown way, but valid access tag
On 8 September 2016 at 20:56, Dudley Ibbett wrote:
> If a footpath isn’t accessible by a walker then I don’t generally put it on
> OSM or I will end it at the obstruction. It looks like you are treating
> this as incomplete data and filling in the footpath according to
7 matches
Mail list logo